Busan District Court 2012Guhap2451 (Law No. 28, 2012.09)

Cheongbuban201buban2164 (20 March 20, 2012)

A tax invoice entered differently from the fact by a scrap metal supplier constitutes a tax invoice, and the plaintiff's good faith and negligence can not be recognized.

(1) The instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the facts of the scrap metal supplier, and the Plaintiff, who has been engaged in the scrap metal business for a long time, seems to have been aware of the actual supplier if he paid general attention, etc., cannot be recognized as the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu3484. Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AAAA Corporation

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

Busan District Court Decision 2012Guhap2451 Decided September 28, 2012

July 10, 2013

August 21, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On April 1, 2011, the defendant's each disposition of imposition is revoked: ① with respect to the plaintiff on the second half-year value added, ② with value added, ② with value added OOO for the first half-year period in 2008, ③ with value added OO for the second half-year period in 2009, ④ with value added OO for the second half-year period in 2009, ④ with value added OO for the first year in 209, ⑤ with OO for the first year in 2008, ⑤ with corporate tax for the business year in 2008 (additional tax) and OO for the business year in 209 (additional tax).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) evidence additionally submitted or presented in the trial, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion; (b) evidence evidence Nos. 12 through 29 (including paper numbers); (c) the court's BBBB Federation at the trial; (d) the court's BBBBBB Federation at the trial; and (e) the testimony of DaD witness at the trial at the trial; and (c) the reasoning for the judgment at the trial at the trial; and (d) it is also cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.