early 2012 Middle 0891 (Law No. 112, 03.27)

At the time of cancellation of a contract, the input tax amount originally deducted shall be reported and paid in the taxable period to which the termination of the contract is issued.

If the sales contract is legally rescinded, the initial refund input tax amount shall be reported and paid as value-added tax for the taxable period to which the termination of the contract belongs, and there is no justifiable reason to believe that there is no reason to believe that there is a lack of report and payment due to the cause of the contract cancellation is the cause of the customer.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 19 of the Value-Adde

Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

Yellow AA

O Head of tax office

September 13, 2012

October 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On December 5, 2011, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax (including the additional tax as stated in the following table) as described in the notice tax column for the Plaintiff on December 5, 201.

(The following table omitted):

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with OO terminal Co., Ltd. for purchase of 000 units and 000 units out of 0 stories and 000 units (hereinafter “instant contract for sale in lots”), and received tax invoices for the payment of purchase price from OO terminal Co., Ltd. during the taxable period of value-added tax from January 2006 to February 2007, and deducted the relevant input tax amount and received 000 won in total as listed below from the Defendant.

(The following table omitted):

On December 18, 2009, the above court rendered a judgment citing part of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the sales contract in this case was lawfully rescinded by the plaintiff's declaration of intent to cancel the contract, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 8, 2010.

C. As the instant sales contract was cancelled, the Oterminal Co., Ltd. issued a revised tax invoice corresponding to the sales amount received from the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff did not report value-added tax pursuant to the above revised tax invoice.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing the Plaintiff the total value-added tax amount of KRW 000 (the sum of the tax already paid by the Plaintiff, KRW 000, KRW 100, KRW 200, KRW 35,000, KRW 200, KRW 2000, and KRW 35,000, KRW 200, respectively, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to file a revised return and pay value-added tax on the input tax refunded as described in the instant sales contract, as described in the instant item (a), and on December 5, 2011, the amount of each value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff (the remainder of KRW 10,00, KRW 200, KRW 35,000, KRW 35,000, and the additional tax, etc. due to the failure to file a revised tax return and the additional tax, etc.).

E. On January 27, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 27, 2012, and dismissed on March 27, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The refund of value-added tax was properly refunded to the Plaintiff for the purchase price actually paid to Oterminal Co., Ltd. according to the instant sales contract, and thereafter, the error of Oterminal Co., Ltd. in the instant sales contract was confirmed by the judgment on the claim for the purchase price refund filed by the Plaintiff against OO Terminal Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff was the victim who was unable to receive the refund from the above company, and the refund received by the Plaintiff should be reverted to the Plaintiff as it is. In addition, since the Plaintiff was unaware of the duty for revised return and payment of value-added tax, and thus

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the Plaintiff has the obligation to report and pay value-added tax

According to the above facts, the plaintiff reported that "the amount paid as the purchase price pursuant to the sales contract in this case to the O terminal corporation was "goods used for its own business in accordance with the sales contract in this case", but the sales contract in this case was legally cancelled by the plaintiff's declaration of cancellation on September 8, 2009 and its validity was terminated, and thus, it was deemed that it had never existed from the beginning. As long as the supply of the goods for which the plaintiff used as the basis for refund of the purchase price was made was never made, and the plaintiff should report and pay the purchase price originally paid pursuant to Article 19 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915 of Jan. 1, 2010) as value-added tax for the taxable period in which the contract in this case was terminated.

(2) Whether there exists a justifiable reason for not being able to impose penalty tax on the Plaintiff

In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims under the tax law, administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the Act when a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as reporting, and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, may not be imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005). However, taxpayer's intentional or negligent disposal is not taken into account (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du10545, Apr. 26, 2007). It is difficult to see that the sales contract in this case was lawfully cancelled, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the overall purport of arguments stated in the above evidence, i.e., the O terminal that issued revised tax invoices, and the Plaintiff's duty to report the purchase price under Article 19 of the former Value-Added Tax Act that the Plaintiff filed against the O terminal for reasons attributable to which the Plaintiff could not report the cancellation of the contract within the statutory due date of return due to the Plaintiff's failure to report the purchase price.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.