beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Chuncheon District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-306 (Law No. 18, 2017)
Case Number of the previous trial
Cho-2015-China-5748 (2016.02.04)
Title
(As stated in the first instance judgment) A legitimate disposition that conforms to the substance over form principle.
Summary
(as in the first instance judgment) When conversion from a simplified taxable person to a general taxable person, only the name of the business operator has been changed to continue to enjoy the benefits of tax reduction and exemption as a simplified taxable person.
Related statutes
Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes
Article 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Cases
(Chuncheon)Revocation of the disposition of revocation of 2017Nu416.
Plaintiff and appellant
AA
Defendant, Appellant
BB Director of the Tax Office
Judgment of the first instance court
Chuncheon District Court Decision 2016Guhap306 Decided April 18, 2017
Conclusion of Pleadings
September 18, 2017
Imposition of Judgment
October 23, 2017
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 3,501,840 won for the first term of 2010 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2015, value-added tax of 3,117,070 won for the second term of 2010, value-added tax of 59,140 won for the first term of 201, value-added tax of 59,140 won for the second term of 2011, value-added tax of 5,057,280 won for the second term of 2,441,320 won for the first term of 2,352,360 for the second term of 2,2012, and of 749,770 won for the second term of 2,2013, and of 987,310 won for the second term of 2, 2014.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.
Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Transmission Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this case’s records are quoted [The actual business operator of the instant workplace appears to be the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff re-examines the entire records of this case, including the evidence submitted in the trial];
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.