Suwon District Court 201Guhap10059 (2012.06.08)

early 2010 Heavy2739 ( October 27, 2011)

It is difficult to recognize the negligence of good faith with false tax invoices;

In light of the fact that, at the time of receiving oil from the customer, there was a sufficient reason to suspect that the normal shipment slips and the entries in the normal shipment slips issued by the oil refining company would not be the actual supplier even though they were issued a different shipment slips, but the fact that the oil was remitted, etc. was not verified.

2012Nu21705 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

AA Corporation

Head of Si Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap10059 Decided June 8, 2012

February 28, 2013

March 14, 2013

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010 pertaining to KRW 000 as additional tax imposed on the second quarter value-added tax for the Plaintiff on August 18, 2010 and the Defendant’s claim for revocation of each disposition of imposition of KRW 000 as additional tax on the first quarter value-added tax for the Plaintiff on August 18, 2010.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total costs of the litigation shall be five minutes, and three of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 209 on June 1, 2010 and value-added tax for the first term of 2009 on August 18, 2010 shall be revoked in all (the record includes penalty tax).

1. Details of the disposition;

"The court's explanation on this part, and the third through 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance," '00 won for correction and notification. (d) The plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on August 30, 2010, but was dismissed on April 25, 2011, and the defendant thereafter on February 1, 2013, and (i) on June 1, 2009, the additional tax amount of 00 won for the second term value-added tax of 00 won for the above second term of 209, and ② on August 18, 2010, the additional tax amount of 00 won for the first term of value-added tax of 1 to 200 won for the first term of 209, and 1 to 200 won for the first term of 200 won for each of the above judgment, and 31 to 315 evidence for the first instance court's identification, and 31 to 410 evidence for each of the judgment.

When examining ex officio, and when an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition is no longer effective, and the revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is deemed unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010). The defendant adjusted the amount of additional tax 00 won out of the amount of value-added tax for the second period of February 1, 2013 and the amount of additional tax 000 won for the first period of value-added tax of 2009 and the amount of additional tax 000 won for the second period of value-added tax of 2009. Accordingly, the part seeking revocation of each of the above disposition imposing additional tax in the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it claims revocation of the already extinguished and it is not unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) considering the following: (b) the first instance court’s first instance judgment Nos. 9 through 11 did not confirm at all whether the goods were sold; and (c) as long as there were sufficient circumstances to suspect that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, who was issued a different type and entries from the normal shipment slips issued by static, at the time of the supply of oil from BB, was in receipt of a different shipment slip (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2211, Dec. 27, 201). (d) The Plaintiff did not confirm the location of business or business facilities of BBppt, etc. without actually verifying the business location of BBpt, etc., and confirmed the name of the business owner after obtaining the business registration certificate, etc., as alleged, and transferred the oil price to the corporate account of BBpp, etc., solely on the basis that the Plaintiff transferred the oil price to BBp, etc.

Unlike the stated contents, it is difficult to recognize that there was no negligence on the part of the person who supplied the oil (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du959, Apr. 26, 2012). In addition to the phrase “the corresponding part of the first instance court’s decision (Articles 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act)”, it is the same as the corresponding part of the first instance court’s decision (Articles 8(2) and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part that seeks revocation of the above imposition of additional tax should be dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff should be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance has different conclusions, and it is so decided as per Disposition by changing the judgment of the court of first instance.