logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019. 02. 22. 선고 2018누68317 판결
이 사건 거래가 가공거래에 해당하여 이 사건 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 세금계산서에 해당하는지 여부[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-60178 ( September 21, 2018)

Title

Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a processed transaction and constitutes a false tax invoice

Summary

In the event that a tax invoice has been prepared in falsity without a real transaction is proved to a considerable extent by a tax authority as to whether it is an actual cost and the other party to the payment has proved to a considerable extent that it is a false one, the taxpayer needs to prove that such cost has been actually paid.

Related statutes

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Cases

Seoul High Court-2018-Nu-68317 ( February 22, 2019)

Plaintiff-Appellant

aa

Defendant-Appellee

b Head of the Tax Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-60178 ( September 21, 2018)

Conclusion of Pleadings

January 11, 201

Imposition of Judgment

202.22

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 19,759,00 (including additional tax) on August 2, 2016 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on August 2, 2016 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are as follows, except for the dismissal or deletion of the following contents among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.

○ The last 2 pages "3 marks" shall be "3 marks (including each number)".

○ 4th 20 pages "the other party to the payment" is "the purpose of use of expenses claimed by a person liable for tax payment and the other party to the payment".

○ 5. The 13.m. from “○○ Tech” to “other parts” shall be deleted.

○ 6th 19th 6th 19th "Therefore, considering the fact that it is unclear about the financial transaction between the Plaintiff and Jeong-○ or ○○○n."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow