Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-5060 ( October 26, 2017)

The registration number of the person who is provided with the requisite entry of the tax invoice of this case shall not be written by mistake.

In addition, it is difficult to deem that the registration number of the person who receives the tax invoice was erroneously written, as well as that there is no illegality in the part of the incomplete payment of the tax invoice list. In addition, there is no illegality in the part of the incomplete payment of the tax invoice list.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Nu8497 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAA Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

April 12, 2018

May 3, 2018

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 imposition of value-added tax of KRW 794,329,50 (including additional tax) on March 21, 2016 by the defendant against the plaintiff on March 21, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, this court's decision is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the imposition of additional tax due to the failure to submit a list of total tax invoices in the instant disposition was unlawful, since all the second list of total tax invoices was submitted to the Defendant in 2012.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence No. 28-1 and evidence No. 28-1 and evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a list of total tax invoices by seller at the second half of 2012, which the Plaintiff entered as a purchaser of KRW 5,150,000,000 in the supply price of the CCC. The Defendant is not deemed to have issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff in relation to the instant contract, as seen earlier, on the ground that CCC did not issue any tax invoice to the Plaintiff, and that it was difficult to deem that the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice to the Plaintiff by mistake. However, the Plaintiff submitted the list of total tax invoices by seller, which entered as a purchaser, including imposition of additional tax of KRW 50,00,00,00. According to Article 22(5)3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s allegation that imposition of additional tax pursuant to the above provision is lawful.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition is an illegal disposition that deviates from and abused discretionary authority, considering the following: (a) the former Value-Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree were amended to mitigate regulation on the tax invoice; (b) the CCC paid all the output tax amount related to the instant contract; and (c) DDD did not report any tax amount related to the instant contract.

In light of the principle of no taxation without the law, or the interpretation of tax laws and regulations is interpreted in accordance with the law, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7392, May 28, 2004). In general, the tax authority’s discretion is not recognized, and the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff do not constitute a special circumstance to recognize the discretion of the tax authority. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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