Seoul High Court 2011Nu21081 (Law No. 14, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 2009Du3295 (O24, 2010)

(Reorder of Hearing) The Plaintiff continued to engage in the actual business even after the date on which the business is reported.

(The main point of the judgment below) Even if part of the amount calculated by the Defendant as an omission in sales as to the business income of the Plaintiff’s workplace is based on the repayment of the outstanding amount or a monetary loan for consumption, it is insufficient to reverse the fact that the Plaintiff had continued the actual business even after the date

Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Du6360. Invalidity of a disposition imposing value-added tax

XX

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu21081 Decided February 14, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the allegation on the grounds of appeal in the grounds of appeal is recognized as not including or without grounds under each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal, and the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final