Suwon District Court 2012Guhap497 ( October 28, 2012)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the supplier.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the actual construction business operator’s inheritors, including loans, etc., the judgment of the above case recognized the fact that the supplier listed in the tax invoice was a nominal lender, and that considerable portion of the construction cost was paid to the actual construction business operator, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier actually paid it to the actual

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu29587 Revocation of Disposition of Value-Added Tax Correction Notice

IsaA

Head of the Office of Government

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap497 Decided August 28, 2012

May 20, 2014

June 10, 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 is revoked, and each disposition of the value-added tax for the first term of July 15, 201 by the defendant against the plaintiff on July 15, 201 is revoked, and each disposition of the imposition of the value-added tax for the second term of 2008 (including additional tax for the second term of OOO) and the value-added tax for the first term of 2008 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. In such cases, the meaning that it is different from the fact is stipulated that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is nominal and there is a separate person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable to pay taxes in accordance with the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the necessary entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries such as the transaction contract, etc. made between them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec.

In the instant case, the following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 evidence No. 1 and 23: ① the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against his heir on July 23, 2009; ② the appellate judgment of the instant case (Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na51859, Jan. 19, 201; the said judgment became final and conclusive without appeal); ③ the main issue of the instant case is: (a) it is difficult for the Plaintiff and ChoB’s heir to enter any of the instant contracts related to the instant construction; (b) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to enter the instant construction works in the name of the FCC No. 1 in the name of the contractor or the Plaintiff’s heir; and (c) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to enter the instant construction works in the name of the contractor or the Plaintiff’s heir; and (c) it is not reasonable for the Plaintiff to enter the instant comprehensive construction contract in the name of the Plaintiff to pay the construction price of the instant case as part of the instant construction works.

Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice that is written differently from the fact by the supplier, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.