Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap21369 (Law No. 19, 2013)

Additional value taxes and additional taxes for not receiving evidence by deducting the input tax amount from the false tax invoice;

The Plaintiff is merely a person who forms a nominal legal relationship with the person who issued a tax invoice and the Plaintiff, and according to the entries in the interrogation protocol, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was supplied with the instant goods by the actual supplier.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu14070 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap21369 decided April 19, 2013

September 26, 2013

October 17, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2010 against the plaintiff on January 2, 2012 and the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year of 2010 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, citing the reasoning for the judgment pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which the plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount, was unlawful, on the grounds that the plaintiff did not know and did not know the name of the tax invoice of this case.

However, barring any special circumstance, where a supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice either knew of the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier did not know of the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier. The fact that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice should be proven by the party who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26695, Mar. 29, 2012). However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact of misrepresentation of BB (CC) as the issuer of the tax invoice, and there is no evidence to find otherwise. Rather, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not know of the overall purport of arguments cited in the judgment of the first instance as above is reasonable in view of the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s sales division, who did not know of the price of the instant goods through the 2000 O.

3. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.