Busan District Court 2014Guhap22428

Cho High Court Decision 2013 Deputy 4157 (Law No. 03, 2014)

The tax invoice that A registered as a business operator is supplied with service and is delivered in the name of another business operator is a different tax invoice from the fact.

The fact that the business operator registered and operated each person's business, and the fact that the plaintiff Gap borrowed the plaintiff Eul's name to avoid the payment of the development charges and received the tax invoice that the plaintiff Eul was supplied with while constructing the building, the tax invoice prepared differently from the fact is not issued by the person who received the tax, but can not be called the plaintiff Eul's name.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu21162 Revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition Disposition, etc.

AA and 1

00. Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2014Guhap22428 ( April 17, 2015)

July 03, 2015

July 24, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the second term portion of 2012 against the plaintiff BB on October 0, 200, and the revocation of the second term value-added tax of 000 won for the second term portion of 2012 against the plaintiff AA on October 000 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 court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Plaintiff AA’s assertion

The Defendant’s application of the General Provisions of the Value-Added Tax Act (Application of the Value-Added Tax Act to the nominal business operator) to the Plaintiff AA throughout a long period of time is unlawful as it is against the tax equity.

B. Determination

The general rule 22-0-1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount of the tax invoice delivered under the name of the third party shall be deducted from the output tax amount of the business owner in the name of the third party and shall not be subject to the non-registration tax pursuant to Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, in order to apply the above provision, the tax invoice shall be the business owner in the name of the third party. However, the fact that the plaintiffs had been operating an independent business before the issuance of the tax invoice of this case, and that the tax invoice of this case was issued by the plaintiff AA who was supplied the plaintiff BB while constructing the building of this case by borrowing the plaintiff BB for the purpose of avoiding the development charges. Accordingly, the plaintiff AA merely received the tax invoice different from the fact that the person who was supplied with the tax invoice of this case was prepared under the name of the third party, and the plaintiff AA cannot be deemed the business owner in the name of the third party under the name of the plaintiff BB. Therefore, the above basic rule cannot be applied to the plaintiff A.

Therefore, Plaintiff AA’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.