1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a corporation established on April 10, 2002 for the purpose of running the automobile transport business.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff sold at KRW 1,050,000,000, 35 taxi owned by the Plaintiff to Busan taxi Co., Ltd.; on January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff issued paper tax invoices and filed a return on the value-added tax by treating the 35 taxi owned by the Plaintiff as the recipient of the Busan taxi Co., Ltd.

On January 8, 2016, the Defendant issued a revised tax invoice under Article 32(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12851, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff was a corporation issuing an electronic tax invoice under Article 32(2) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 12851, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) on the ground that it did not issue an electronic tax invoice until the date prescribed in Article 34(3) of the same Act but did not issue it.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination on April 6, 2016, but was dismissed on June 20, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including the main number), and the purport of the entire argument as to the validity of the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff’s employee in charge of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case was issued on January 12, 2015, which is within the statutory issuance period, but the Plaintiff’s employee in charge of the Plaintiff issued electronic tax invoices on January 12, 2015. However, since it was inevitable to output and transmit due to the failure to

As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to issue an electronic tax invoice is not intentionally but duly conducted such as the return of value-added tax. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty to issue an electronic tax invoice is justified.