Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap51685 (Law No. 10, 2015)

The plaintiff, who is an exporter, receives a tax invoice different from the fact to obtain a deduction and refund of the input tax without a burden of output tax.

(1) In the case of the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the exporter, as an exporter, issued a tax invoice different from the fact in order to obtain a deduction and refund of the input tax amount without the burden of the input tax amount due to the application of zero-rate tax rate, and to make a disguised transaction. It is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff did not have any good faith

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu72769 Value-Added Tax Deduction and revocation of Disposition of Additional Tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap51685 decided October 24, 2014

August 20, 2015

September 10, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s revocation of the rejection of the application for the refund of value-added tax for the first term of November 19, 2012 against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2012, and the revocation of the imposition of the OO value-added tax for the first term of January 2, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff regarding the disposition of this case shall be revoked. The disposition of this case shall be revoked.

1. Objects of adjudication of this Court;

As stated in the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff rejected the application for revocation of the disposition of refusal of value-added tax on November 19, 2012 against the Plaintiff. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was rendered on January 2, 2013, and sought revocation of each of the above dispositions. The court of first instance dismissed the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of refusal of value-added tax on November 19, 2012 among the instant lawsuit on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was a disposition rejecting the application for revocation of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on November 19, 2012, and dismissed the part of the claim for revocation of the instant disposition. Since the Plaintiff appealed only with respect to the part of the claim for revocation of the instant disposition, the subject matter of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim for revocation

2. Details of the disposition;

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the second-class 9 through 12 of the second-class 9, the third-class 12 of the disposition), and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (the corresponding part of the disposition of this case, i.e., the 4th to 15th to 19th, 17 through 18th, i.e., whether the disposition of this case is legitimate) except that the last behavior of the second letter of the second letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., the second letter of the second letter of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., "tax invoice" as "tax invoice". Thus, it is accepted in accordance

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.