Daegu District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-3247 (20 June 2014)

The early 2013Gu2911

No person may be deemed to have been negligent in not knowing the fact that he/she was a false tax invoice (state winning)

(1) In light of the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the first instance court, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a bona fide trading party, since the Plaintiff was negligent in not examining the fact that the actual counterparty of the transaction was aware of or was suspected of being the actual counterparty of the transaction, or there was a need to investigate whether the actual counterparty of the transaction was a party to the transaction.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu5294 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

(State)A

BB Director of the Tax Office

National Rotations

December 5, 2014

January 9, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On November 1, 2012, the defendant revoked the disposition of the value-added tax ○○○ and the corporate tax ○○○○○ for the first term of November 201, 201 against the plaintiff (the date of the disposition stated in the complaint's purport of the claim seems to be a clerical error on November 1, 2012).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiff in the first instance court, and evidence submitted in the first instance court and evidence submitted in the first instance court and evidence Nos. 8 through 15 submitted in the first instance court.

Even if all descriptions are examined, the first instance judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion is justified.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of some contents as follows. As such, it refers to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ In addition to the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 3 to the grounds for recognition of the last sentence of the first instance judgment

section 3.

○ The third court's first court's fifth court's fifth court's decision " January 18, 201" is " January 8, 2011."

○ The 7th final action of the first instance court's decision is 'CC'.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.