Seoul Administrative Court 2018Guhap5609 (2018.03)

Whether a tax invoice related to the transaction of this case is a processed tax invoice received without real supply

In order to achieve the sales performance, the Plaintiff is clearly deemed to fall under the processing transaction by formally inserting the Plaintiff in the transaction stage and doing the instant transaction.

Article 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2018Nu61323 Disposition Revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

AAAAAAA

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

on October 1, 2018 03

November 1, 2018 09

November 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

1. Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant imposed value-added tax of 000 won for the first period of 201 X. X. for the Plaintiff for the first period of 201 X (including additional tax for failure to perform tax invoices; hereinafter the same shall apply), value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 201 X, value-added tax of 00 for the first period of 201 X, and value-added tax of 00 won for the second period of 201 X.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss or add the following among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and even in addition to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable, and it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except where the court of first instance has added the judgment that there is no error as alleged by the plaintiff, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with

○ 5 pages 2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 16009, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same).

○ 13 pages 5 and 6 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act are applied to the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

○ 13 up to 10th 8th 13th 8th “Bshing” portion to “Bshing,” which reads that the Plaintiff included the “non-specially related persons, such as the Plaintiff, in the course of trading with a view to lowering the trading ratio with a view to evading the gift tax of the controlling shareholders.”

The Seoul High Court Decision 2010O Decision 2017O, etc. cited by the Plaintiff following the 14th 2nd 14th 2nd 2nd , added “(6) is different from the instant case, and thus it is inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.”

The ○ 15th page 4 seems to be merely the best act to be legitimate," and the 15th page 4th page 1 is considered to be "the only act to be legitimate."

○ 16 pages 16 "The Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14387, Dec. 20, 2016)" is the former Value-Added Tax Act.

○ 16 pages 21 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is the same as the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

2. Conclusion

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