Seoul High Court-2015-Nu-35422 ( November 11, 2015)

Cho Jae-2013-China-2918 ( October 17, 2013)

It can not be viewed as a tax invoice received through an actual transaction due to abnormal shipment slips, etc.

(2) In the tax investigation, it is difficult to view the purchaser as a normal shipment slip because it did not indicate temperature and weight, etc. in the shipment slip, and it is difficult to view the purchaser as a normal shipment slip due to lack of confirmation as to whether the purchaser is a normal business operator.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act: Additional Tax

Supreme Court Decision 2016Du58683 Decided revocation of Disposition imposing Value-Added Tax

GuAA

00. Head of tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu35422 Decided November 11, 2015

2016.04.15

Among the parts against the defendant, the part against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the first instance on this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

9/10 of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du15343, Oct. 13, 2011).

According to the records, the defendant, after filing an appeal of this case, knew of the fact that the court below revoked ex officio the disposition of imposition as to the part against the defendant among the judgment below in accordance with the purport of the judgment below. Thus, the part of the lawsuit of this case, which was revoked as above, is seeking revocation of the disposition without the extinction of its validity, and thus, becomes illegal as

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on adopted evidence, and determined that: (a) the instant tax invoice (excluding the portion of the tax invoice against the Defendant) received from the supplier and the actual supplier on the relevant tax invoice constituted a different tax invoice from the supplier on the tax invoice; and (b) further, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff did not know that the supplier was not the actual supplier, or was unaware of the fact during the pertinent tax invoice. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, but its conclusion is justifiable; (c) contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating the logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.

3. Conclusion

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and 9/10 of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.