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

BB The disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2010 against A industry on December 15, 2011 and the first term of 2011 value-added tax of 3,594,341,690 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and all claims of the AA industry shall be dismissed.

The reasons for this court's ruling are as follows, except for the following parts determined by the court of the first instance or by additional determination in the following paragraphs: Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited.

○ 2, the 7th parallel 7th parallel '52-3' is '572-3.

From the fourth side to the fourth side, 'No. 6' is added to '4 -6 - [based grounds for recognition].

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the BB Director's argument

In light of the fact thatCC resources, Dmetallic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "D metal"), EE Commercial (hereinafter referred to as "EE Commercial Act"), among the DM, the high FF, which was accused of the data and sentenced to conviction (GG District Court No. 000, 000, 000), and the high F, in the course of the tax investigation, made a false closed-end transaction in accordance with the direction of HH by the representative director of the AA industry, the AA industry is a tax invoice different from the fact that the AA industry received from the purchaser of this case (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice of this case").

B. Determination

(1) Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice

(A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. The meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different is different from the fact. This refers to cases where the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the actual supplier or supplier of the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). In addition, in a series of transactions, whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of the goods under the Value-Added Tax Act should be determined individually and specifically by taking into account various circumstances, such as the purpose and manner of each transaction party, the ownership of profits, and the payment relationship of prices, etc., of the specific transaction, under which the input tax invoice received in the process of the transaction is denied on the grounds that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of the goods.

(B) Facts of recognition

① Of the instant purchasing parties, the highF, was rendered a final tax return for the second period of 2010 and the first year value added tax in 201, and was rendered final judgment of innocence at the first instance court on the facts charged that “The first instance court rendered a false entry of the list of total tax invoices by sales place and submitted it to the Government, even though there was no fact that the goods equivalent to the amount of KRW 853,960,850 were supplied to AA industry,” and the first instance court rendered a judgment of not guilty on June 4, 2015, which became final and conclusive around that time.

② The tax authority’s determination of the AA industry as a sales agent of the processed transactions is mainly based on the MF’s statement from the process of tax investigation, but the MF, in the first instance court of the relevant criminal case, has reversed the statement in the process of tax investigation that “a false closed-end transaction was made in accordance with the direction of the largest HH by the representative director of the AA industry” and received a judgment of not guilty as above.

③ As a result of the investigation in relation to transaction order withCC resources, it is confirmed that the place of business has a good attendance at the location of the place of business, and the scrap metal was set up in the last place, and most of the transaction with the seller was determined as normal transaction.

④ As a result of the investigation into trade order with respect to the remaining purchasing agencies, it was confirmed that the EE Company had actually carried out the business at the location of the place of business in the case of the EE Company (Representative J), and in the case of DM, MaK, the representative of EM, provided that it actually supplied AA industry a closed-down operation. As to EK’s representative ordering EK to engage in the transaction, the relationship between LL, JJ and AA industry was not revealed because it did not carry out any substantial investigation related to the transaction.

(5) The AA industry has purchased and traded equivalent to the sales through normal sales after being supplied with waste Dongs, etc. from its purchaser at least 20 places.

① The AA industry and the H, the representative director of the HH, were accused of the facts suspected of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) in relation to the First and Second Declaration of Value-Added Tax in 2011, including transactions with some of the purchasing parties of this case (D metal and EE companies).

Evidence in front of the basis for recognition, Gap evidence 26 through 28, Eul evidence 23 and 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(C) Sub-determination

The following facts revealed by the above facts: ① the confirmation of processing transaction for the AA industry by the director of the tax office is based on the high F's initial statement; ② the High F's reversal of the initial statement made in the tax investigation and made a processing transaction with the AA industry was pronounced not guilty; ② the fact that it is difficult to believe that the high F's initial statement was made in light of the circumstances and contents of the high F's statement, ② the relationship between the LLL or the JJ with the representative of the E EM company and the major parties to the AA industry is not revealed; ③ the AA industry appears to have been a purchase transaction equivalent to the sales amount by normal trading with the 20 purchasing places, but the BB director of the tax office deemed to have been a false tax invoice for the purchase place only for the 3 purchase places in the BB, and ④ the fact that the BB director and the evidence related to the AH industry were insufficient in light of the legal principles as evidence related to the AB's sales structure, and there was no other evidence supporting the BA industry's purchase process.

(2) Whether it constitutes good faith and negligence

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the AA industry was not aware of the fact that the instant tax invoice was false, as alleged by the director of the BB tax office, in light of the following various circumstances, and that there was no negligence due to the failure of such knowledge.

Where an entrepreneur and a supplier on a tax invoice receive a different tax invoice, in principle, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refundable. However, even if an entrepreneur was issued such a tax invoice, if there are special circumstances, such as where he/she was unaware of the nominal fact and was not negligent on account of failure to do so, such input tax amount may be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527, Jul. 25, 2013). In the case of waste resources, such as waste roads at issue in this case, cannot be deemed as having a duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised entrepreneur due to the nature of the distribution structure and transaction, and thus, there is sufficient circumstance to suspect that the other party is a disguised entrepreneur in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a person eligible for a transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 197).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the AA industry had confirmed the location of the place of business and the business facilities prior to the commencement of the transaction with the purchaser of this case, and received a business registration certificate, copy of the settlement account, certificate of corporate seal impression, etc. from each purchaser, and left objective data, such as transaction statement, measurement certificate, and certificate of receipt, whenever the closed Dong is supplied, and transferred the closed Dong price to each settlement account of the purchaser of this case. It is difficult to view that the supplier of this case is obligated to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business operator, whether the pre-stage purchaser is a normal trader, and whether the pre-stage purchaser is a normal trader. Considering the above facts, there is no evidence to see that there was sufficient reason to doubt whether the purchaser of this case is merely a nominal supplier different from the other purchaser of the AA industry, as alleged by the BB director of the tax office, even if the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the AA industry was negligent by failing to know the fact of the name of the purchaser of this case.

(3) Sub-determination

The instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals by the BB director of the tax office are dismissed.