Gwangju High Court-2014-Nu-6813 ( October 11, 2015)

The early appellate court 2013 Mine1741

Only the fact that a tax invoice issued through a disguised transaction has been submitted cannot be readily concluded that the intent to evade tax has been expressed.

If it is insufficient to deem that the supplier and the actual supplier entered in the tax invoice did not know their names or did not know their names, the disposition of non-deduction of input tax amount is legitimate, but it cannot be readily concluded that the intention of tax evasion has been expressed solely on the basis of the fact that the tax invoice issued under a disguised transaction has been submitted, and thus, the imposition

Supreme Court Decision 2015Du47560

AA Industry, Inc.

000 director of the tax office

Gwangju High Court Decision 2014Nu6813 Decided June 11, 2015

November 12, 2015

Among the parts against the defendant, the part against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the first instance on this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall

3/4 of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity, and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du26422, Aug. 28, 2014).

According to the records, on June 11, 2015, after the filing of the instant appeal, the Defendant, according to the purport of the lower judgment on June 11, 2015, knew of the fact that the part against the Defendant in the instant disposition was revoked ex officio. As such, regarding the revoked part of the instant lawsuit, the said revoked part is related to a disposition that has not been extinguished and thus, became inappropriate as there was no benefit of lawsuit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and it is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly judge this part of the judgment, and the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part is revoked, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and 3/4 of the total costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder is to be borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per