Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap13669 (2015.01)

Seocho 2014 Schedules1725 (2014.07.02)

A business operator liable for value-added tax;

Since the Plaintiff is an independent business operator under his/her responsibility with comprehensive authority without being instructed or supervised by another person, and thus, the Plaintiff is a business operator liable for value-added tax.

Article 21 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu45238 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap13669 decided May 1, 2015

December 9, 2015

January 20, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2013 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the dismissal of some of the judgments of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

- With regard to the three pages, the phrase “(3) to (8) of this paragraph” shall be changed to the phrase “(3) to 9 of this paragraph.”

- From 3 pages to 3, 4 the following are added, Nos. 1, 5, 6, 6:

(4) On January 8, 2008, the Plaintiff stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that the amount ofCC electricity and the actual transaction was KRW 000,000,000, but it was demanded to purchase data and issued an excessive amount of KRW 00,000,000. DDR in charge of the actual business ofCC electricity was also in charge of the tax investigation on February 4, 2008, that the “EEE”, which is the name of the issuance of the tax invoice, purchased all goods from the Plaintiff, and the actual transaction amount was KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 without the actual transaction. The Plaintiff and DD’s statement are consistent with the above.

2. Conclusion

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