Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap20506 ( October 16, 2015)

It shall be deemed that it constitutes a false tax invoice, and it shall not be deemed that there is no negligence on the part of not knowing the fact of misrepresentation.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, although it is difficult to prove that the transaction was actually conducted, it shall be deemed that the verification was conducted, and it constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and it shall not be deemed that there was no negligence due to the failure of knowledge of the name

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2015Nu64376 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

United StatesA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap20506 decided October 16, 2015

September 22, 2016

October 27, 2016

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 part of the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 12,027,50 on September 4, 2014, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on September 4, 2014 exceeds KRW 1,312,250, which was imposed by the Plaintiff.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that it is difficult for the plaintiff to take advantage of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff added "(the same shall also apply when the plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 25 to Gap and No. 35 to the appellate court and the testimony of ParkCC witness at the appellate court)" to the following. The plaintiff added the judgment on the argument at the appellate court as stated in the following: therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion of appeal

The plaintiff asserts that in the second period of 2010, the plaintiff did not amount to 60,871,250 won in the transaction amount D with D during the second period of 2010, but did not amount to 47,748,750 won in fact.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received four purchase tax invoices from D in total, 60,871,250 for total supply amount from DD in 2010 and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the tax amount related to the above purchase amount from the Defendant. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was true, the Plaintiff’s portion of KRW 13,122,50 (=60,871,250 - 47,748,750) corresponding to the difference is delivered a false tax invoice without real transaction from D, and thus, it cannot be deducted from the input tax amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted as it does not affect the conclusion.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.