Cheongju District Court 2010Guhap2710 (No. 12, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2009Hu4316 (Law No. 1031, 2010)

Since the shipment slip in the name of the customer was received by mail, it shall not be deemed good faith or negligence.

(1) As stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the delivery of oil oil at the time of the receipt of oil does not directly receive the shipment slip from the article of the transport vehicle, but instead received the shipment slip in the name of the transaction party in the name of the transaction party after 2-3 days, but neglected the confirmation of the actual supplier. Thus, it cannot be viewed as good faith

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(Cheongju)Revocation of a disposition imposing value-added tax 201Nu304

XX

Head of Cheongju Tax Office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2010Guhap2710 Decided May 12, 201

December 21, 2011

January 18, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 15,597,220 on September 1, 2009 and value-added tax of KRW 19,049,060 on September 8, 2009 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the second three to ten parts of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and the reasons for this Court’s explanation are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

A. From September 25, 2001, the Plaintiff operated a gas station under the trade name of 500-3, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, 500-3, the resignation of Cheongju-si. The Plaintiff received eight purchase tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice” in total of eight purchase tax invoices”) as listed below from Daejeon Branch of ○○ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Energy”) during the 2007 and the 1st value-added tax period in 2008, and from Daejeon Branch of △△ Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Petroleum”), and reported and paid the value-added tax for each taxable period by deducting the purchase tax amount related to the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount.

[The following table omitted]

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.