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

Cho Jae-2014-west-2857 (2015.04.01)

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;

(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.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Seoul High Court-2015-Nu-61186

Is 00

00. Head of tax office

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

2016.03.24

2016.04.21

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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.

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.