Suwon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-2516 (Law No. 24, 2015)

early 2013 Heavy093 ( December 30, 2013)

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice, and that there was no negligence in not knowing it.

The plaintiff was aware that the actual counterpart of the transaction was not the transaction partner of this case, or at least there was a negligence that did not investigate, even though there was a need to investigate the other party's identity as the actual counterpart of the transaction.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2015Nu4986 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap2516 Decided June 24, 2015

November 18, 2015

2016.013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The amount of each notified tax for each taxable period in the attached Table to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ 2nd 11th 'the First 1st 'the Second 1st 'the Second 1st 'the Second 'the Second 1st 'the First 'the

○ 4. The following shall be added to the 9th page:

“On the other hand, in the event that a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer for value-added tax on the basis of input tax deduction was prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, the tax authorities can reasonably prove whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice. In the event that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer is proved to be reasonable, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for a taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the actual transaction with a supplier listed in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2

○ 5 Dul 10 (L) includes the facts constituting a crime for which a false list of total tax invoices against the plaintiff was entered and submitted later.

○ 7. The following shall be added subsequent to the 1st day of the 7th page.

[3] Even if the Plaintiff was supplied with actual oil and deposited the price into the account of the transaction partner of this case, it is merely a means to disguised normal transaction in so-called data transaction, and it is difficult to find that there was no negligence due to the failure of knowing the disguised transaction of the tax invoice of this case on the sole basis of such circumstance.]

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.