Busan District Court Decision 2013Guhap2108 (Law No. 16, 2013)

Cho High Court Decision 2013Da461 (Law No. 138, 2013)

If the obligation to receive the eligibility evidence intentionally violates the obligation, it is legitimate to exclude the application of the penalty limit under Article 49 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(1) If the transaction was conducted with a prior knowledge that it would not be possible to receive a tax invoice under the knowledge that the purchase tax invoice should be received, then it would be reasonable to exclude the application of the limit of penalty tax under Article 49 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and impose penalty tax accordingly.

2013Nu21205 Revocation of revocation of the imposition of additional tax

AA enterprise, Inc.

○ Head of tax office

Busan District Court Decision 2013Guhap21008 Decided December 19, 2013

May 14, 2014

June 11, 2014

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. The defendant's corporate tax (additional tax) against the plaintiff on October 0, 2012 shall be revoked.

The imposition of KRW 00,000,000 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court in this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Article 8(2) of the Court Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is (the plaintiff).

The trial basically repeats the same argument in the first instance court, and the plaintiff is a party to the trial.

Even if examining some complementary arguments and reasons, the first instance judgment is justifiable).

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is just, and it is dismissed.