Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap14923 ( October 30, 2010)

Dispositions imposed on the returned assets by deeming them as a processing tax invoice that is not a real transaction;

(1) In light of the above, it is reasonable to see that a sales contract for modified goods is a processing tax invoice in light of the following: (a) the sales contract for modified goods appears to have been prepared arbitrarily differently from the actual transaction content in order to submit the goods to the Defendant as an explanatory material during a field investigation on refund of value-added tax; and (b) the result of the Defendant’

2010Nu35854 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

XX Co., Ltd

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap14923 decided September 30, 2010

July 13, 2011

September 28, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. If, at the end of the judgment of the court of first instance, the detailed statement of tax invoices in the annexed sheet is corrected.

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the first term of March 5, 2004 against the plaintiff on March 5, 2009 at KRW 326,970,730, corporate tax for the business year of 2004, KRW 73,176,387, and corporate tax for the business year of 2005 shall be revoked in all.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is to be used for this case is as follows: (a) the result of the on-site investigation of the Defendant’s refund of value-added tax in the second line below the sixth line is as follows: (b) the result of the on-site investigation conducted by the Defendant, in light of the time of the investigation (the August 2004), with the exception of adding “it is difficult to directly prove the facts delivered during the taxable period of value-added tax for the first quarter of 2004.” The reasons for the first instance judgment are as follows: (c) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 4

2. Conclusion

The appeal shall be dismissed: Provided, That because the judgment of the court of first instance omitted from the list of tax invoices in the last part of the reasons for the judgment, it shall be corrected.