Jeonju District Court 2009Guhap2990 (No. 31, 2011)

early 2009 Mine2261 (Law No. 24, 2009)

Since a business operator operating a gas station has received a tax invoice different from the facts, the disposition that deducts input tax amount is legitimate.

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance), a business operator operating a gas station has received a different tax invoice from the fact, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a bona fide and without fault, and the disposition that did not deduct the amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the tax invoice is legitimate.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(B)Revocation of revocation of disposition to correct the value-added tax, etc.

Park XX

Head of the Military Tax Office

Jeonju District Court Decision 2009Guhap2990 Decided May 31, 2011

December 26, 2011

January 16, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of March 2, 2006 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2009, of KRW 14,583,960 for the second term of 2006, value-added tax for the first term of 2007, KRW 108,702,010 for the first term of 207, value-added tax for 104,507,740 for the second term of 207, value-added tax for the first term of 208, KRW 73,315,730 for the first term of 208, and KRW 34,800 for the global income tax for the

The reasoning for the court's reasoning for this case is that "the head of each of the instant branch offices in XX" of the first instance court Nos. 5, 8, and 9 is "the head of each of the instant branch offices in XX (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant branch offices")", and that "each of the instant tax invoices is a tax invoice different from the facts" is not sufficient to reverse the first instance court's decision, and that "each of the instant tax invoices is a tax invoice different from the facts", and that "A, witness A, witness A, witness B, testimony of the lecture, and testimony and "the plaintiff is a party with good faith and without negligence" of the first instance court's decision are not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's argument. Thus, the court's reasoning for the first instance court's decision is the same as that for the first instance court's decision, except for the rejection of each statement of evidence No. 12-1, 2, and 18, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be 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, and it is so decided as per Disposition.