beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff from A during the 2001 Value-Added Tax period for the second taxable period for the value-added tax, which was executed by the Plaintiff during the manufacturing and sales business of the electronic machinery organization constituted “unlawful
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence
2. As to the second ground of appeal, where the supplier and the actual supplier are different from those indicated in the tax invoice, the supplier may not be entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount pursuant to the tax invoice, unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact
In addition, the burden of proving that the person who received the supply was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name should be proved by the party claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277 Decided June 28, 2002, etc.). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was unaware of, or was negligent in, the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of, the name of the Plaintiff.
In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the “trade party’s negligence of duty of good faith” subject to the deduction of input tax amount under the Value-Added Tax
3. As to the third ground for appeal.