Incheon District Court 201Guu1928 ( October 16, 201)

early 209 Heavy3978 ( December 29, 2010)

A false tax invoice entered differently from the fact that the supplier does not constitute good faith and negligence;

(1) In light of the fact that most of the companies confirmed and accused as data are identified as data and the details of purchase are processed transactions, it is reasonable to see that the supplier is a false tax invoice, and there is no evidence to prove that there was no negligence in the absence of such knowledge.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu8009. Revocation of disposition to impose value-added tax

South XX 1 other

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2011Guhap1928 Decided February 16, 2011

October 31, 2012

November 21, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first time of August 1, 2009 and value-added tax of 000 won for the second time of 2007 and value-added tax of 000 won for the first time of 2009 and the imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first time of 2008 on October 1, 2009 shall be revoked (the plaintiffs have reduced part of their claims).

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this court's ruling is as follows. The corresponding part shall be cited pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O From the second to the third second half below (the details of the disposition 1. c. c.) are as follows:

[C] The Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was written differently from the fact, and deducted the input tax amount, and imposed 000 won of value-added tax for the first year of August 1, 2009 and 000 won of value-added tax for the second year of 2007, and 000 won of value-added tax for the first year of 2008 on October 1, 2009. After that, upon the reduction correction made by the Defendant on October 22, 2012, the Defendant imposed 00 won of value-added tax for the first year of 2007, value-added tax for the second year of 2007, value-added tax for the second year of 2007, value-added tax for the second year of 200, value-added tax for the first year of 2008, and value-added tax for the first year of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”).

O The third (which is the basis for recognition) is as follows:

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 29, 30, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 19 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

The term "Plaintiff" in the fourth 14th and seventh 13th is "Plaintiffs," and the term "Plaintiffs," in the seventh 16th and third 16th is "Plaintiffs," respectively.

O 6th two pages " was confirmed" (the copy of the Plaintiff's personal passbook was found at the time of the investigation of XX energy). The other part is the finding of the Plaintiff's personal passbook.

O The sixth 10-17th reduction is as follows:

[In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice received from a specific transaction constitutes a "unlawful tax invoice" under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) where the deduction of an input tax amount is denied on the grounds that such transaction is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods is a transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). Generally, in litigation seeking revocation of a tax imposition, the burden of proving the fact of taxation must be borne by the imposing authority. However, unless it is proved that the other party is presumed to be eligible for the application of the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that does not meet the taxation requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du656868, Sept. 24, 2009).

The phrase “brightnessd” in the 7th nineth nineth (the foregoing evidence and evidence Nos. 13 through 18) of theO is referred to as the “brightnessd” (the foregoing evidence and evidence No. 13 to No. 18), and the following fourth (the Plaintiff’s presentation of evidence by this Court is difficult to view otherwise even if the evidence presented by this Court is presented by the Plaintiff).

In addition, the disposition of this case is deemed to be in violation of the substance over form principle and the substance over form principle, and the substance over form principle, and the substance over form principle. In addition, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be in violation of the substance over form principle.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.