Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Suwon District Court 2010Guhap5746 ( October 07, 2010)
Case Number of the previous trial
early 2010 Heavy0422 (2010.04.08)
Title
If there are processed sales and processing purchases, there is an obligation to pay additional taxes on non-performing entries on the list of tax invoices.
Summary
(1) In the case of complete data, no value-added tax or additional tax shall be imposed because it does not constitute an entrepreneur. However, if an entrepreneur who supplies goods submits a list of total tax invoices by aggregating the processed sales amount and the processed purchases amount, he is liable to pay additional tax against the list of total tax invoices entered differently from the fact.
Cases
2010Nu3846. Revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.
Plaintiff and appellant
1.The DepositA2.B
Defendant, Appellant
○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap5746 Decided October 7, 2010
Conclusion of Pleadings
June 10, 201
Imposition of Judgment
July 1, 201
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition by the defendant on the separate sheet against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.
Reasons
The reasons for this decision are as follows: "The evidence submitted by the court of first instance is based on the statements in Gap evidence No. 20 through 23, but it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff TA was out of the status of oligopolistic shareholders by transferring 69,000 shares held by the plaintiff to KimB on Jan. 2, 2005." Further, the purport of Gap evidence No. 10,11,12,13,18, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), and witness KimB's witness KimB's testimony cannot be deemed unlawful on Jan. 2, 200, considering the whole purport of the arguments, "No. 12,12, 13, 18, and 17 evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 69, etc. are transferred to KimB on Jan. 2, 2005." In addition, the purport of Gap evidence No. 10, 12, 113, 18, and 17, respectively.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.