Incheon District Court 2016Guhap52303 (Law No. 14, 2017)

the fact that it cannot be deemed that an actual transaction was made, and thus constitutes a false tax invoice.

(1) Since it is reasonable to deem that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff and the transaction partner actually supplied or supplied copper rap, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact, and it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff’s assertion alone constitutes a transaction party of the duty negligence.

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu48026 Disposition of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax, etc.

AOOOO

O Head of tax office

October 25, 2017

November 22, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 466,379,780 for the first period of July 1, 2015, value-added tax of KRW 466,379,780 for the first period of 2013, value-added tax of KRW 5,194,960 for the second period of 2013, and each imposition of KRW 2,495,50 for the corporate tax of KRW 2013 for the second period of July 6, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows 2, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except to supplement or add the judgment in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

○ 13 Up to 184-1 Ro-O’s 12 pages 13 were amended to “Plaintiff”, and deleted from 13 pages 13 to 184-1 way.

○ 16. The following shall be added to 1:

Inasmuch as “OOO on October 13, 2017” was actually operated by the Plaintiff from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, 2017, ○○ Branch of the Incheon District Court (2017 high-level 110) found the Plaintiff guilty on the ground that OOO was supplied with waste-free materials under the name of the so-called “OOOOOOmers and OOOOs for the evasion of value-added tax,” the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that OOs were supplied with waste-free materials, and the Plaintiff received false tax invoices or issued false tax invoices for the purpose of receiving 2030 to 2013 or 270 to 203 of the total supply value of Os for the purpose of evading value-added tax, the Plaintiff either received false tax invoices or received false tax invoices from OOOOs and OOs for the purpose of receiving false tax invoices from 2013 to 237.137 of the Plaintiff’s.

○ 16. To revise the “actual status of transactions” into “actual status of transactions, conviction against the plaintiff”

3. Supplement and addition of judgments;

The plaintiff did not know at all that the purchase office of this case was merely a so-called "large coal business" or "signing business", and most purchase and sale, which are the subject of the disposition of this case, occurred before the representative director of the plaintiff, was able to perform work in full, and the O was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution by the prosecutor.

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by this court is difficult even if the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 10, 41, and 46 submitted by the plaintiff was added. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. 1. All of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed