Daejeon High Court (Cheongju)-2013-Nu-568 ( October 28, 2015)

Cho Jae-2012- Daejeon-1242 ( November 19, 2012)

Whether the Plaintiff’s instant transaction constitutes a bona fide transaction

Part of the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff does not constitute a false tax invoice, and even if it falls under such case, the Plaintiff is a party to good faith and without fault.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act in the form of tax payment under the former Value-Added Tax Act.

Supreme Court Decision 2015Du1304 Decided revocation of Disposition imposing Value-Added Tax

Co., Ltd. 000

00. Head of tax office

Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) Decision 2013Nu568 Decided January 28, 2015

December 10, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the assertion that it constitutes a wrongful tax invoice

The allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part is that the judgment of the court below is unlawful since the court below made an erroneous fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence and determined based on it, although the supplier was a tax invoice issued by Kim JI (JI) and SAms among the respective tax invoices in this case, which are false.

However, such allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower court’s decision in light of the records, there is no error of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the plaintiff's assertion that he does not constitute a transaction party with good faith and negligence

After finding the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence, the lower court determined that all of the remaining tax invoices of this case except for those issued in the name of Kim JI (JI) and SAms, among each of the instant tax invoices, fall under cases where both the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are different, but in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, such as the developments leading up to the commencement of the relevant transaction, the supply of consent, the process of acceptance, and the method of payment, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the name of the supplier of the remaining

In light of relevant provisions, legal principles, and records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

December 10, 2015