logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2017.07.19 2017누2654
부가가치세등부과처분취소
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

The court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some of the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the disposition of this case rendered by the Defendant on a different premise is deemed to have no negligence on the Plaintiff, and thus, the part of the disposition of this case in this case, which was rendered by the Defendant, is deemed to have been unlawful on the part of the value-added tax.” The part of the disposition of this case, which was rendered by the Defendant on a different premise, is deemed to have been against the law.

Part XII, paragraph 1, the following shall be added:

Article 116(2) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “A corporation that is supplied with goods or services in connection with the business of determining corporate tax portion among the dispositions in this case shall receive evidentiary documents from “the person who actually conducted the transaction of supplying goods or services.” Thus, in a case where the person who actually conducted the transaction of supplying goods or services fails to receive evidentiary documents from “the person who actually conducted the transaction of supplying goods or services,” it constitutes subject to additional tax under the main sentence of Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and it does not change even if the corporation received evidentiary documents from “the person who actually conducted the transaction of supplying goods or services,” who is not “the person who actually conducted the transaction of supplying goods or services,” (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24654, Apr. 26, 2012). Meanwhile, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to taxation and the realization of the tax claim, additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the individual tax law.

arrow