Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap41977 (Law No. 28, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du1295 (Law No. 119,07)

It is difficult to deem that an actual supply exists in accordance with the matters stated in the relevant tax invoice.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership or the right to dispose of goods as an independent party and transferred them to a third party, it is merely a formal form of tax invoices, supply contracts, financial transaction details, etc., and the key transaction appears to be a bicycle for unretailing sales, it is difficult to deem that there exists an actual supply act corresponding to the matters stated in the key tax invoice.

2012Nu32828 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAteckero Co., Ltd.

Director of the District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap41977 decided September 28, 2012

April 17, 2013

May 1, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

A. On January 4, 2010, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period of February 2006, and KRW 000 for the second period of February 2007, as the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

B. The Defendant’s disposition of notice of collection of corporate income tax on KRW 000 of the Plaintiff’s Representative BB’s wage and salary income tax for the year 2006 and KRW 0000 of wage and salary income tax for the year 2008, which the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff around September 201, is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke the below shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax by the defendant on January 4, 2010 against the plaintiff on January 4, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows; and (b) the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion is added in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o 5 pages 1 '00' in the column of '00' is deleted from the ‘00', and '00' in the non-highest column, ‘the difference between the proceeds of supply and the proceeds of supply in the contract'.

o 5 pages [Attachment 2] '00' in the column of '00' is '00', and '00 won for supply and about 000 won for supply in the contract in the non-high column' is deleted.

o The '000' in the column of the 6th [Attachment 4] amount is '00' with ‘00', and the '0000 won for the supply in the contract in the non-high column' is 'A difference between about 1000 won and about 5,000 won under the contract (a difference between KRW 5,000 and KRW 5,000)'.

o 12th "Purchase tax invoices: (1) Purchase proceeds and issues in the transaction, (2) the part of the supply proceeds in the supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's deposit details for HH in the transaction is deleted, and (3) the part is deleted.

o 12 100 '00' that will be 10 '00'.

2. Additional determination

The Plaintiff asserts that the purchase tax invoice and the sales tax invoice are true tax invoices. However, considering the circumstances in the first instance trial and the fact that the sales tax invoice were issued in a false manner in the course of the National Tax Service’s investigation (Evidence 3-1 of the evidence 3), the issues are ① purchase tax invoice and the issues related to the sales tax invoice constitute false tax invoices. Furthermore, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion by the representative director, the issues: (i) the sales invoice and the issues related to the sales invoice were supplied to the Plaintiff at once from HH; and (ii) the issues were ① the sales invoice and the issues related to the sales invoice were made in a single manner after the above transactions (Evidence 3-2 of the evidence 3-2); and (iii) the sales tax invoice and the issues related to the sales invoice are different from the fact that the date of preparation is different from the date of supply. The Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.