Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap1254 ( August 24, 2018)

It is reasonable to deem that the machinery is purchased and sold again, not a brokerage for the sale of machinery, and therefore, it is liable to pay value-added tax on the total value of supply

Since it is reasonable to deem that the machinery is not a brokerage for the sale of machinery, it is purchased and sold again, it is reasonable to assume that the value-added tax is imposed on the total value of supply of machinery.

Article 25 of the Framework Act on National Taxes of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2018Nu63978 Disposition revoking Value-Added Tax Imposition

KimA

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

on January 24, 2018

December 14, 2018

on October 08, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of operation and place of operation

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the first period of 201 X. X. for the Plaintiff in 201 X. shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows, except for dismissal or addition of the following contents among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.

○ 3rd page 4 "B Trade" is the "B Trade in Stock Company B(hereinafter referred to as "B Trade")".

The "construction machinery sales contract" in the 7th page of the 00th place is the "construction machinery sales contract".

The parts of the ○ 3rd 21 to 4th 2 are as follows.

With respect to “A contract,CC was paid KRW 201X. X. XX. down to the date of the contract, the contract was received KRW 00 million, and the intermediate payment was received from X.D on X. 201 X. X. X. and the check was paid KRW 00 million (EEEE was paid in cash from the Plaintiff or DD, and the Plaintiff testified to the effect that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 00 million in the remainder from the FF (Death around February 2017), which is the land owner, to the effect that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 200,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff or DD.).

○ 5 pages 1 and 6 of the Do table, each of the "GG" in the above Do table shall be raised to "GG".

○○ 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 7 side 1 as witness of the first trial

○ 9 pages 17, “no" cannot be seen as “no one,” and such imposition of value-added tax is limited to the scope of a legitimate tax amount, so it cannot be deemed as an unlawful taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du3279, supra).

○ 10,000,000 won in two parallels shall be "00,000 won".

○ 10, 19 pages, the following shall be added:

5) Even based on the statement in Gap evidence 19, HH is hard to believe the content stated in Gap evidence 17 (III's factual confirmation), which corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was at the site at the time of preparation of the contract, and that the plaintiff was at the time of preparation of the contract.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.