(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.10 2014구합55909

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.10 2014구합55909

부가가치세부과처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity engaging in oil retail business with the trade name “C” from July 1, 2001 to Pyeongtaek-si B.

B. The Plaintiff received from D (hereinafter “D”) a tax invoice of KRW 848,145,00 for the total value of the first period supply in 2009, KRW 1,388,032,00 for the second period supply in 2009, KRW 60 for the tax invoice of KRW 1,38,032,00 for the total value of the first period supply in 209, KRW 193,920,000 for the total value of the first period supply in 209, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the pertinent input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. On October 10, 2013, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation into the tax offense following the processing tax invoice against the Plaintiff; (b) concluded that the instant tax invoice was false; and (c) notified the Defendant of the fact on September 2013; and accordingly, (d) on October 10, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of correction (including additional tax) of the value-added tax for the first period portion of value-added tax 174,201,650, and value-added tax for the second period of 2009, value-added tax 277,509,170, and value-added tax for the first period of 209, the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 (including additional tax).

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 20, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on April 15, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As the Plaintiff was supplied with oil from D, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice. 2) Even if the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice.

Even if the plaintiff did not know such fact and was negligent in not knowing it.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2014.07.17 2013구합10613

-인천지방법원 2015.02.06 2014구합32770

-의정부지방법원 2013.09.10 2012구합4581

-수원지방법원 2015.06.03 2014구합53309

-수원지방법원 2014.09.24 2013구합5754