logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.20 2015구단50143
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 12, 2006, the Plaintiff, an entrepreneur operating the business of manufacturing fire-fighting machinery and appliances from around June 12, 2006, received a tax invoice of KRW 81,646,050 of the supply price from a company B during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 201, and thereafter paid the value-added tax by return to the Defendant

(hereinafter) The above purchaser is the purchaser of this case, and the above tax invoice is the purchaser of this case. B.

On March 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the investigation on the data related to the instant purchaser, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 14,074,140 on March 1, 201, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice different from the fact.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). C.

On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on November 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was supplied with 14,711kg of the actual discontinuance of business from the transaction partner of the instant case on November 21, 2011, and thus, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

(2) Even if the transaction partner of this case falls under the so-called data category, the Plaintiff did not know that the transaction partner of this case was not the actual supplier and did not know that the transaction partner of this case was not the actual supplier, since the Plaintiff did not know that the transaction partner of this case was not the actual supplier, as it was confirmed that the transaction partner of this case was directly visiting the place of business of this case and confirmed

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. (1) Whether the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice (A) Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013).

arrow