부가가치세등부과처분취소
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The value of supply and the input tax amount of the purchase tax invoice received from B (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and C (hereinafter “C”) from D at the time the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return in 2007 and 2008, which is the business partner at the time the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return in 2007 and 2008.
The Defendant, on the ground that the second half year 2007, 2008 total (ju) 108,385,300 (10,838,530), 452,19,230 (45,211923), 315,867,50 (31,585), 87,7550 (31,586,755), 243,721,80 (24,37,637,208), 47,760 (24,372,180), 297, 207, 291,629, 2961, 207, 207, 2057, 209, 308, 396, 3084, 296, 398, 209, 3984, 206, 3984, 29638
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Seoul Regional Tax Office, but was dismissed, and requested to the Tax Tribunal on January 24, 2013, but was dismissed on December 2, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 6, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is different from ordinary disguised transactions, since the Plaintiff was actually supplied with scrap metal stated in each of the instant tax invoices.
Therefore, each tax invoice of this case is not a false tax invoice different from the fact.
Even if each tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice different from the fact, the plaintiff has a duty of due care by confirming whether each business operator has registered the business, and by receiving a copy of the bank account, confirming the business operation.