부가가치세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is an enterprise that runs a wholesale and retail business of non-metallic metals in the Gu and America-si.
B. From January 2010 to February 2012, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 11,423,970,390 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from the Defendant as follows, and filed a return and payment of value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.
(hereinafter referred to as “each of the transaction parties in this case”). The supply price of the transaction parties in the taxable period shall be 360,423 E 1, 440,423 up to 80,170, 440, 446, 341 G 7, 97, 347, 347 H 1, 34, 3456 up to 19 2,458, 804, 16, 66, 348, 192, 108 J 1, 2012, 16, 62, 108, 105, 190, 2892, 25, 36, 376, 2784, 207, 2011.
C. From April 11, 2012 to October 24, 2012, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff. Considering that each of the instant tax invoices was a processed tax invoice issued without real transactions, and did not deduct the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff, on April 12, 2013, the amount of KRW 9,091,291,290 for the first period of January 201, 201, KRW 86,16,780 for the second period of February 2011, KRW 362,925,90 for the first period of January 201, 201, KRW 46,90 for value-added tax, KRW 840 for the total amount of KRW 46,90 for value-added tax.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 19, 2013.
【Reason for Recognition】 Each description of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and Eul’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the closure of each of the instant tax invoices by each of the instant transaction parties, and thus, each of the instant tax invoices is not a false tax invoice.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff deals with each business partner of the instant case.