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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's imposition of the 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.

"A. The Plaintiff, a company operating a wholesale business of computers and peripheral devices, received a tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice of this case") that was supplied with the goods such as Nowon-gu (hereinafter referred to as "the goods of this case") equivalent to the amount of OOO won over 58 times from thisCC operating its business in the name of the second half of 2010, and filed a return of value-added tax for two years, 2010 after deducting the supply value of the goods of this case from the output tax amount," and "B. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff from September 26, 2011 to November 4, 201, and the Plaintiff was issued the tax invoice of this case from thisCC even after receiving the supply of the goods of this case from the largest D, the Plaintiff was subject to the said tax invoice of this case, but the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of 2010 U.S. 210 and 2010 U.S. 20. 200.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that the headE, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, reported to the effect that the Plaintiff would purchase the instant goods fromCC, that the Plaintiff remitted the price of the instant goods to the account of thisCC, that the head of the purchasing place stated that the instant goods were purchased from thisCC, that the least DD and ParkF would supply the instant goods to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not have any reason to prepare a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to have received the instant goods from thisCC. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was supplied with the instant goods from the largest DD was unlawful, and that the relevant statutes were b.

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

“1) From February 2010 to March 201, 201, EE served as the chief of the division of the Plaintiff Company’s business division. ① became aware of Park F, which is the actual operator of BB when working on the horse flood information system on February 2004, ② at the time of working on the horse seat information system, he became aware of the maximum amount of the instant goods at the time of working on the Plaintiff’s account. ② The price of the instant goods was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff to the account of thisCC, and, in most cases, the amount equivalent to the said amount was immediately remitted from the account under the name of thisCC to the account under the name of thisCC.

3) The instant goods were delivered by ParkF directly or through Kwikset Service, and mostD directly delivered the instant goods.

4) MaximumD stated in the course of the tax investigation to the following purport:

○ himself personally purchased goods in the market and supplied them to the Plaintiff, but the other party requested the transaction partner to issue the tax invoice in the name of BB to the Park F, who was aware of the fact that there is no business registration number at that time, and the credit was asked by Park F to issue the tax invoice in the name of BB, thereby allowing it to do so.

○ The goods were supplied by himself, but the tax invoice was issued by ParkF, so the tax invoice was issued by ParkF, and the tax invoice was issued by himself in any case. The Plaintiff himself had the tax invoice.

○○ supplied goods with the Plaintiff’s head of the EE division, and sent transaction items and tax invoices to the Plaintiff, and when the goods arrive, it was confirmed by the head of the EE division and sent the proceeds by using his own phone.

When the telephone was well received from the EE director, and the telephone was stuffed at the BB's office, the ParkF deposited the money into its account.

○ The Plaintiff knew that the goods are supplied by himself and that the tax invoice is in the name of BB.

○○ issued a tax invoice to ParkF because of the lack of its business registration certificate.

5) ParkF made a statement to the following purport in the course of prosecutorial investigation.

《제1회 피의자 신문》

○○ LD is the head of HHHA, but it imposes money on selling goods separate from HHHA. However, as the least DD is unable to issue a tax invoice to its seller due to its failure to perform business registration, it requested that it issue a tax invoice to him/her. Therefore, in order to solve taxes imposed on BB during the main period of issuing the tax invoice for the goods sold by the least DD, the mostD does not resolve the relevant taxes, and it is necessary for the least DD to settle the taxes.

○ upon the request of the least DD, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the extent that the amount of OOO was levied on the Plaintiff.

○○ The Plaintiff, a company that sold the goods, deposited the goods into the new bank account in the name of thisCC and the national bank account in the name of thisCC, and then transferred the goods again.

《제2호 피의자 신문》

"○ himself/herself has caused an OO loss to the largest D, but there was no circumstance at the time, making it difficult to repay his/her obligation to the least DD. Therefore, the D is unable to issue a tax invoice because of the lack of business registration in his/her own place of funeral. It is difficult to issue a tax invoice in four names. "I do not know about the amount of tax to be imposed on He/she is entitled to receive money from the tax to him/her on the face of the week." "I would like to issue a false tax invoice in order to be deferred for him/her to receive the due date under the circumstance that he/she has repaid his/her money to the largest D.", "I issued a tax invoice of the OO on July 22, 2010, and issued a tax invoice of the OO by no later than December 10, 2010, and the total amount of the OO tax invoice issued by him/her is the total amount of the OO won.

"A false tax invoice issued for ○○D is a tax invoice issued by ○○○ in the name of CC and issued to the Plaintiff that sold the goods by ○○ in the name of the Plaintiff." A tax invoice that occurred by ○○ in the name of the supplier is in the custody of the supplier. On December 2, 2010, the supplier submitted 58 copies in the Yongsan Tax Code while filing a report on the confirmation of value-added tax in the last half of 2010, and the recipient sent the invoice to the Plaintiff by crowdfunding or facsimile whenever the invoice is issued.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 2 to 4, 9 evidence, witness Park FF, witness testimony of E and the purpose of pleading transfer

D. Determination

1) Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax amount in a case where the details of a tax invoice are different from the facts, shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. In this case, the meaning that it is different from the facts is stipulated that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is only the nominal title, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the relevant tax law shall apply. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary contents of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or supplied, regardless of the formal descriptions of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the transaction concerning the goods or service (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu

2) In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s statement to the effect that it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s most reliable tax invoices were supplied to the Plaintiff, i.e., E and Do 2, and that it would have been aware of the importance of the tax invoice because it was engaged in computer-related business. ② The price of the instant goods was transferred to the account in the name of Do Do 1 through the account in the name of Do 2. According to the fact that the Do 2’s statement was sent to Do 2, Do Do 3, and Do Do Do 3, which was the most reliable fact in the process of supplying the instant goods to Do 2, and that the Do 2, which was not the Do 2, was issued the Do Do 3’s statement to the effect that the Do 2, which was the most reliable fact in the process of supplying the instant goods, and that the Do 2, which was found to have been issued the Do 3’s statement.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.