Incheon District Court 201Guhap6213, 2012.12)

Early High Court Decision 201Du1268 (Law No. 15, 2011)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier has entered it in a false manner.

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance), the person entered as a supplier in the tax invoice of this case is deemed to be not capable of actually supplying the same equivalent to the value of supply for a single data, and the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice different from the fact entered by the supplier, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent due to the failure of the supplier to know the fact

2012Nu2370 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AA metal Co., Ltd.

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

Incheon District Court Decision 201Guhap6213 Decided July 12, 2012

March 21, 2013

April 11, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On January 3, 2011, the imposition of the value-added tax for the second term of 2009 against the plaintiff and the corporate tax (additional Tax for Receiving Evidence) for the year 2009 shall be revoked in all.

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are reasonable and acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff argues that the first instance court's judgment was unlawful, because the plaintiff's tax invoice 2 was 0 years before the second instance court, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice 2 was 10 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 2 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 3 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 10 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 2 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 10 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 3 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 9 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 20 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 9 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 3 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 9 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax invoice was 10 years old, and that the plaintiff's total tax invoice was 10 years old, and that the plaintiff's tax office was 20 years old.