logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 04. 21. 선고 2015누61186 판결
실사업자와 명의상 대표자가 다름을 알고 거래한 경우 위장세금계산서에 해당함[국승]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-59150 (Law No. 18, 20159)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho Jae-2014-west-2857 (2015.04.01)

Title

a false tax invoice where the actual business operator or the representative of the person in whose name the person in question is aware of the transaction;

Summary

(1) If the actual businessman and the representative are knowingly traded, it constitutes a disguised tax invoice. If the actual businessman and the representative are aware of such fact, the business registration number shall be the same but only the name of the representative shall be different from that of the actual businessman.

Related statutes

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Cases

Seoul High Court-2015-Nu-61186

Plaintiff and appellant

Is 00

Defendant, Appellant

00. Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-59150 (Law No. 18, 20159)

Conclusion of Pleadings

2016.03.24

Imposition of Judgment

2016.04.21

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 decision of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 60,734,514 for the first term of July 16, 2011 against the plaintiff is revoked, respectively, in excess of KRW 9,897,150 for the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 41,593,029 for the second term of value-added tax for the year 201 and KRW 16,712,180 for the imposition of KRW 19,205,820 for the first term of the year 2012 and KRW 18,278,740 for the second term of the value-added tax for the second term of the year 2012.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's reasoning for the judgment is the same as that for the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following matters. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Then, “The plaintiff asserts that it is sufficient to inform the actual owner of goods or services of the fact that the actual owner of the business registration is the nominal owner on the business registration certificate, and if the actual supplier of the goods or services knows that it is 00, it is not the case where the actual owner of the goods or services recorded another person’s business registration number with the knowledge that it is 00, it is not the case where the name of the operator is erroneous, but the case where the business registration is not made in the name of 00.”

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

arrow