Suwon District Court 2014Guhap50614 ( October 15, 2015)

early 2012 Heavy1244 ( December 24, 2013)

In full view of the current status of the business of the purchaser and the applicant's transaction behavior, etc., the processing purchase tax invoice is considered, but there is an actual sales, so it is necessary to recognize the necessary expenses.

In full view of the current status of the business of the purchaser and the applicant's transaction behavior, etc., the processing purchase tax invoice shall not be deemed a bona fide transaction, but the sales (export) shall be deemed to have actually existed, and the comprehensive income tax shall be corrected according to the actual cost by recognizing the value of supply as necessary

Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu56955 (21 June 2016)

양@@

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap52375 Decided August 12, 2015

oly 2016.17

oly, 2016.21

1. All of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the head of the Suwon District Tax Office rendered on December 1, 201 by the plaintiff on December 1, 2010

Value-added tax of KRW 50,968,458 (including additional tax), and value-added tax of KRW 2,212,684,709 (additional tax) for 2010

(C) In addition, the global income tax for the year 2010 owed to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011 by the Defendant’s Director of the Korea Tax Office

357,237,050 won (including additional tax) shall be revoked (the head of the Suwon District Tax Office shall apply to the plaintiff)

In the imposition of value-added tax, the penalty tax for unlawful underreporting shall be changed to the general underreporting;

The Plaintiff revoked ex officio the difference equivalent to the difference. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s ex officio revocation shall be reflected.

The claim for the revocation of a provisional disposition has been reduced.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this case is that "61,580,520 won" of No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "61,580,520 won (including additional tax 14,149,416 won)", "2,689,214,080 won (including additional tax 635,372,494 won)", and "2,689,214,080 won (including additional tax 635,372,494 won)", and "the part of No. 5-7 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted from the third 7th , and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additions after the third 7th , and this shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

F. Of the instant disposition, the head of Suwon District Tax Office revoked the imposition of KRW 14,149,416 of the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2010 and the imposition of KRW 635,372,494 of the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2010 and the imposition of KRW 3,537,354 of the general imposition of the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2010 and the imposition of KRW 158,843,123 of the general under-reported additional tax for the second quarter of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant disposition”) and the remaining portion of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2010 and the remaining portion of the imposition of the global income tax for the second quarter of 2010.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Choi*

Judges Jeong*

Judges Cho*