logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.11.18 2015누51806
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion under paragraph (2) of this Article, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, even if the business that supplies the instant service does not correspond to the “residential building supply business” under Article 25-2 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, it constitutes “other business similar to subparagraphs 1 through 9, which is either impossible or substantially difficult to issue a tax invoice” under subparagraph 10 of the same Article, and thus, it may issue a receipt in lieu of the issuance of the tax invoice for the instant service, and thus, the penalty tax imposed on the ground that

Article 25-2 (10) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "other business similar to subparagraphs 1 through 9, for which the issuance of a tax invoice is impossible or substantially difficult."

However, Article 53(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "where a person who receives goods or services is not a business operator, the business operator may issue a tax invoice stating the name, address, and resident registration number of the person who receives the services," and according to the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have known of the address, name, and resident registration number of the buyers, and the Plaintiff did not supply the instant services within a short time, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not have any conditions or preparation to issue the tax invoice to the buyer, solely on the basis that the Plaintiff supplied the instant services to the buyer.

arrow