Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap54264 (Law No. 14, 2017)

The instant declaration of value-added tax cannot be deemed as null and void due to significant and apparent defects.

There is no evidence to find that the Plaintiff voluntarily filed a revised return and paid value-added tax, and the tax authority knew that there was a defect in the act of filing the instant value-added tax return, and that the tax authority voluntarily paid the instant tax even after the first instance judgment becomes null and void due to the issuance of new shares related to the instant case at the time of the payment, etc.,

Article 45 (Revised Return)

Seoul High Court 2017Na202832 (Law No. 14 September 2017)

○○○○○○○ Company

Korea

Seoul Central District Court 2016 Gohap54264 (Law No. 14, 2017)

August 24, 2017

September 14, 2017

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 defendant shall be KRW 944,047,550 and the part on July 22, 2011 for the plaintiff.

Tter 3.7% per annum until February 29, 2012, 4% per annum from the next day to February 28, 2013, and 0% per annum until February 28, 2013,

3.4% per annum from the date of drinking to March 14, 2014, and 2.9% per annum from the following day to March 5, 2015;

From the following day to March 6, 2016, service date of 2.5% per annum and from the next day of the complaint of this case

Until the date of full payment, 1.8% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

under payment.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding "it is difficult to view the Plaintiff's act of filing the value-added tax return of this case to be null and void automatically even if it appears in the trial that "it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff's act of filing the value-added tax return of this case on the reclaimed land of this case except the license as the investment in kind cannot be deemed null and void automatically, even if the Plaintiff invested in kind in this case including the public waters reclamation license, as added in the trial."

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.