2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that is engaged in electronic commerce as its main business from ODD (hereinafter “DDD”) 239-4 to March 1, 200. The Plaintiff issued and delivered 11 copies of the sales tax invoice to the company BBBB (hereinafter “BBB”) during the first and second taxable periods of the value-added tax, and the companyCCCC (hereinafter “CCCC”) and received 13 copies of the purchase tax invoice from DDD (hereinafter “DDD”), and the Plaintiff received 11 copies of the purchase tax invoice from DoDD (value OO and value-added tax invoice) and 200, 2010, 200, 2010, 200, 201, 200, 200, 201, 20, 201, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 30, 201, 20, 20

C. Accordingly, on August 31, 2011, the Defendant determined the sales and purchase tax invoices of this case as tax invoices different from the actual transaction, reduced the sales and purchase tax amounts, and added additional tax on the receipt of the sales and purchase tax invoices of this case under Article 22(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), and corrected and notified the Plaintiff on the one-year period of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on November 15, 201, but was dismissed on June 29, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] The respective entrys in Gap, Eul, 2, and 4 through 6, and 8, and Eul, and 2, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not know at all the processing trader, and there was no reason to suspect that the instant transaction had been conducted. Therefore, there was a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not be mistaken for the Plaintiff’s duty to perform. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) processing transactions of CE;

A) DDR, a sales enterprise, is a public institution established by the Small and Medium Business Corporation by investing 100% of the Small and Medium Business Corporation in order to develop markets for the products of small and medium enterprises and promote their management.

“E” is the actual operator of the FFFFFF (hereinafter referred to as the “FFFFF”), BBB, andCC (hereinafter referred to as the above companies individually referred to, “FFFF,” “BB,” “CC,” and “GGGGG in combination with the above companies.” From 2005, GGG entered into a consignment contract with the DDD and on behalf of its company for the purchase and delivery of goods, and (b) HHDD and other transactions in order to raise funds to use approximately KRW 4 billion for the repayment of obligations arising from its investment in the Home shopping business, and to obtain funds for the payment of obligations, such as purchase and sales, entrusted by GGGGGG from the existing DD to purchase and sales, and to expand the basic flow of products, and to expand the HHHHHD’s payments, such as those made by the GHDD and so forth.

C) The Plaintiff entered into a transaction with the FFFF from April 2008 prior to the instant transaction. However, in relation to the instant processing transaction, III, which is an employee of DDDD and FFFF, made a request for diversification from DDD to the FFF. However, around February 2010, when the Plaintiff, and GGG, had low corporate credit rating, so it is difficult to make the purchase smooth because the risks of DDDD’s sales claims are high, and it was suggested to the effect that the Plaintiff would act as a broker for the transaction between DDD and GGGGGG to arrange the transaction between DDDDD and sell them. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with DDDDD to purchase goods from BDD and sell them to BBBB, etc., and the sales invoice was received from 301 October 21, 2000, and the sales invoice was received from 300 BB B B B. In accordance with the contract.

2) Details of the instant transaction

A) DDDD, a selling company, sent by facsimile a transaction list indicating the details of the transaction goods, issued a purchase tax invoice to the Plaintiff by e-mail, and the Plaintiff confirmed and signed a transaction list received from DDDDD, signed, confirmed whether the transaction list was actually supplied to BBB, and the due date for payment of the price was confirmed, and the sales tax invoice was issued to BBB, and then the Plaintiff received the payment of the goods from BBB, etc. to the Plaintiff’s passbook and remitted the remainder other than the fees to the small and medium enterprise distribution center. In that process, the Plaintiff verified the JJJ, and the supply tax invoice, etc. from KR, known to DDD staff, and from KR or e-mail.

B) KK settled the items of goods supplied to the Plaintiff by DDDDD each month, and issued electronic tax invoices in the name of DDDDDD in e-mail. The above tax invoices are electronic tax invoices generated from the LLL (www.L.co.k.) certified in the Information and Communications Industry Promotion Agency and are issued electronically using the authorized certificates of DDDDD.

C)DDDD had, at the time of the instant transaction, GGG used part of its building as its office, provided office equipment such as telephone, facsimile, etc., and had no sign indicating GGGGG on the information board of the office or head office building used by GGG employees. Moreover, DDDDD representative telephone number for the JJ, which is its staff, was processed as if the phone were to be connected to the department to which it was affiliated.

D) Meanwhile, in order to pretend circular trading as if the circular trading was a progressive trading, and to have MM work for NN, to instruct MM to prepare a false identification certificate, and to deliver it to DDDD with a false identification certificate.

E) In the process, the Plaintiff received 0.5% of the sales amount to a purchasing enterprise as a commission, and obtained profits from the OOOO fee. The Plaintiff receives an amount equivalent to 0.1% to 0.8% of the sales amount to a purchasing enterprise as an ordinary purchase agency fee.

F) On November 20, 2010, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices from DDD on October 2010, but requested that BBBB, etc. did not make purchase confirmation and make payment, and DDD also made a request to return the tax invoice received after cancelling the sales to the effect that there was no transfer of the goods among the transactions in December 31, 2010, and on January 4, 2011, the Plaintiff sent to the Small and Medium Business Distribution Center for the cancellation of the Plaintiff’s purchase.

3) The instant disposition and related criminal cases

A) In relation to the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff, as follows, denied the output tax amount and the input tax amount, and the output tax amount denied is larger than the denied input tax amount, and the principal tax was refunded, and the instant disposition is ultimately an additional tax that is calculated by deducting the principal tax from the additional tax amount.OO

output tax amount (1)

An input tax amount (B)

Difference (1-B)

1, 2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

2010

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

B) On November 17, 201, the Defendant accused the Plaintiff, etc. as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the Plaintiff, from the Prosecutor’s Office, could not be deemed to have received false tax invoices with the knowledge of the intention of circular processing transactions. On the other hand, the Defendant received a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that there was no evidence of delivery, and on the other hand, the JJ also received a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that the JJ from 2006, which had been in relation to the processing transactions,

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 20, and 22 through 28, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed in accordance with the tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates a return, tax liability, etc. under the tax law without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intentional negligence is not considered. However, in cases where a taxpayer is deemed not to have been unaware of his/her duty, it may not be imposed in cases where there are justifiable grounds that make it difficult for him/her to be aware of his/her duty, or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005).

2) Considering the following circumstances revealed in the facts of health stand and recognition in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that there was a justifiable reason that does not err by the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the Plaintiff’s duty in the return of value-added tax on the instant tax invoice, and the instant disposition is unlawful. ① The instant transaction was basically made by doorE by means of a fraudulent act committed by door-E in order to prevent the return of its own debt, and the instant transaction was made by GG employees, and the instant transaction was not known as a processing transaction. In addition, the door-E made two persons in charge of the logistics center to prepare two false cargo call and certificate of confirmation, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff and the same purchasing agency to verify the movement of goods properly.

② In light of the fact that the electronic tax invoices of DDDD could not be issued without the authorized certificate of DDDD, and that the Plaintiff did not seem to have known that J, K, and K, which were in charge of the actual duties, were DDD staff, and GGG staff, J, and K, which were in charge of the actual duties of DDDDD. Therefore, it could not be easily known that the instant transaction related to the sales and the purchase of the tax invoice was identical to the purchase and the sales place by performing the actual duties of DG staff, and that the tax investigation was conducted for dGG staff, and that the instant transaction was found to have been processed.

③ The Plaintiff made efforts to verify whether the goods were actually supplied between DDD and BBB, etc. In other words, the instant transaction was conducted in the form of buying agency, and the Plaintiff confirmed the transaction fact by confirming the transaction specifications conducted by the selling company, and by confirming the acquisition of the purchasing company, and the payment made in the purchasing company was made without any special problem. Accordingly, when a tax invoice different from the fact was issued in November 2010, the Plaintiff immediately cancelled and discarded the tax invoice in accordance with normal procedures, and excluded the Plaintiff from the return of value-added tax.

③ There is no motive or reason for the Plaintiff to engage in the instant transaction. The Plaintiff was caused to the instant transaction upon the request of the change in the customer status of DDD, and the Plaintiff, after the instant transaction, had the intent to expand brokerage about transactions between its member companies and DDDDD. In addition, the Plaintiff is responsible for the instant transaction as the party to the transaction, and the Plaintiff is responsible for the payment settlement and tax invoice receipt as the party to the transaction, so it is inevitable for the Plaintiff to choose the transaction between the companies that are related to the transaction or verified, and is also a public institution and the transaction with the GGGG.

The fee rate of the transaction in this case was lower than the normal rate of transaction, and there was no benefit from the transaction in this case. In addition, the plaintiff does not have any profit or tax avoidance, and the disposition in this case is all additional tax.

④ At the time of the tax investigation, the doorE responded to the question whether the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant transaction was a processing transaction, “the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that there was no physical transaction rather than the concept of the processing transaction, even if there was no material transaction.” However, the doorE’s statement was known in criminal proceedings that the time when the statement was made, and that DDDD et al. were not involved in the processing cycle transaction, and that it was not consistent by the reversal of the statement that DD et al. actively participated in the final process, and that it was not consistent. Accordingly, the doorE’s statement (Evidence No. 3) alone did not indicate that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant transaction was a processing cycle transaction, or that the transaction was conducted without the material transaction, and there was no evidence to support it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.