Seoul High Court 2011Nu3350 (27 April 2012)

early 2010 Heavy1341 ( November 23, 2010)

(Inviting Trial Disorder) The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been negligent because the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was falsely entered.

(2) The Plaintiff did not pay due attention to the Plaintiff, even if there were sufficient circumstances to suspect that the actual supplier of oil was not a person entered in the tax invoice, and did not know that the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was not negligent because the Plaintiff did not know that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012du10864 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

XX Kim

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu3350 Decided April 27, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Although the lower judgment was examined in light of the records of this case, it is recognized that the assertion on the grounds of appeal falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Procedure

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Reference materials.

If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final