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

A. Since the Plaintiff was established on May 6, 2003 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling non-ferrous metals, and processing, manufacturing, and selling clothes electric wires, the Plaintiff is running the above business at 000 U.S. O. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o.

B. The Plaintiff received three copies of tax invoices equivalent to the total value of 000 won (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”) from KimCC in the first taxable period of the value-added tax for the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, and then deducted the input tax amount according to each of the tax invoices of this case, and reported and paid the first taxable value-added tax in 2010 to the Defendant.

(Omission of Return and Payment)

C. However, on September 2, 2011, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) considered KimCC (BB) as a disguised business operator who issued a false tax invoice without real transaction; (b) notified the Defendant of the fact that each of the instant tax invoices was false; and accordingly, (c) notified the Defendant of the decision of correction of KRW 000 of the value-added tax base for the first time in 2010 for the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The whole purport of the arguments and the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In fact, the Plaintiff purchased Nadong and the same lot as indicated in the instant tax invoice from KimCC (BBC) ( while being suspected of issuing a false tax invoice in the process of supplying Nadong to a seller, the Plaintiff’s Nadong and the same lot purchased from KimCC, and even though Nadong and the same lot were not closed, it did not correspond to the above suspicion of KimCC, the Defendant misleads the Plaintiff as a training company, but became aware of the remaining disposition of this case by the Defendant, and even if it was unrelated to the above suspicion of KimCC, the KimCC operated BB B B B , a “do retail,” and instead of directly supplying a product, may issue a tax invoice from the point of arranging, arranging, and acting as a broker for the product supplied to the Plaintiff by the non-commercial seller. Accordingly, the tax invoice of this case is not different from the facts.

2) Even if the KimCC constitutes data, the Plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate prior to commencing the transaction with KimCC, and each time he was supplied with the product from KimCC, prepared a measurement confirmation by measuring the quantity of the product, recorded the transport vehicle number, the volume of the vehicle, and the time of entry into the original materials storage register, recorded the transport vehicle in photographs, and remitted the transaction price to the account in the name of KimCC after confirming whether the contents of each tax invoice and the specifications of the transaction in this case issued by KimCC coincide with the actual transaction details. The Plaintiff did not know that KimCC was a disguised business operator and did not know and did not know that the Plaintiff was a disguised business operator.

3) The plaintiff confirmed that, prior to initiating the transaction with the KimCC, the business attitude is 'do retail' and the category is 'non-satisfy and scrap iron' through the business registration certificate issued to the KimCC, and the issuance of the above business registration certificate is an act proving that the KimCC is a business operator engaged in normal trade, and the plaintiff purchased the product from KimCC, and the disposition of this case against the above trust of the plaintiff is in violation of the principle of good faith.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The KimCC had four years of imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of forging official documents, and had no experience in the field related thereto prior to the date of release from prison in the name of "Bmerth" around June 24, 2009, about 10 months after the release from prison.

"2) At the time of opening BB 20, the location of BB 20 had been changed to 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and later changed to 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

4) At the time of the transaction with KimCC, the Plaintiff prepared a measurement certificate stating the transport vehicle number, weight, etc. at the time of the transaction with the Plaintiff, entered the transport vehicle number, the name and content of the transport vehicle, and taken photographs of a part of the transport vehicle (However, the Plaintiff did not confirm the name and contact of the transport engineer with respect to one of the six transport vehicles, and did not confirm the remaining five vehicles).

5) At the very close time from the date of the preparation of each of the instant tax invoices, the Plaintiff remitted the amount consistent with the entry of each of the instant tax invoices to an account in the name of KimCC, wherein the trade name was entered, and KimCC withdrawns in cash all the amount of the said transaction amount, including the said transaction amount remitted by the Plaintiff, immediately after being transferred to the Plaintiff.

6) In rendering the first half of the Value-Added Tax in 2010, KimCC reported the sales amount to approximately KRW 000, and approximately KRW 000 of the purchase amount to KRW 100,000. Of the above purchase amount, KimCC could not obtain input tax deduction because it constitutes a purchase of recyclable resources for which there is no personal information of the supplier, etc., and eventually, the value-added tax that KimCC should pay during the first half of 2010 has reached about KRW 00,000, while KimCC closed its business around September 10, 2010.

7) From January 14, 2011 to May 24, 2011, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation with respect to KimCC; (b) deemed KimCC to fall under the data; (c) filed a complaint with the prosecution; and (d) considered all sales tax invoices, including each of the instant tax invoices, issued by KimCC in the first taxable period of value added tax in 2010, as false tax invoices, and notified the Defendant of the fact. At the time of the tax investigation, KimCC, asserting that it received some loans or other assistance from a person in the process of raising approximately KRW 00,000, the detailed method of funding was not disclosed (at the time of the commencement of the tax investigation, KimCC refused to provide financial institutions with a debt amounting to approximately KRW 00,000; and (c) rejected the cash withdrawn by being transferred from the customer; and (e) refused to clarify the purchaser’s intent in the transaction.

8) Meanwhile, on July 17, 2010, KimCC filed an application for the extension of the first time period for filing of value-added tax for three months (by October 25, 2010) in 2010 when it reported that the documents related to sales and purchase, which were kept in the place of business, were stolen. However, as a result of the investigation, it was clearly identified that it was a false report for the extension of the deadline for filing of value-added tax, and was investigated as suspicion of obstruction of the performance of deceptive scheme performance.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, and Eul evidence 2 to Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice

A) 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 facts. The meaning of the case is different from the fact. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if a person to whom a tax invoice belongs belongs is the person to whom the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction belongs, and there is another person to whom the tax invoice actually belongs, the person to whom the tax invoice belongs shall be the taxpayer, and that where the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or supplied, and the price and time of the transaction made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, regardless of the formal descriptions such as the transaction contract made between the parties to the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods as provided for in the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes 30.

B) In this case, there is considerable doubt as to whether the KimCC, which had not been experienced in engaging in wholesale and retail business in the previous time, was capable of operating the 'BB satch' as well as the 'B satch' which requires monthly operation after release from the office. (2) The KimCC decided that it was difficult to see the Plaintiff as normal form of transaction, and that it was difficult to see that the 'B satch' was made in cash after being transferred from the business partners including the Plaintiff, and that the 'PP satch' was made in the 10th taxable period of value-added tax, and that the 'PCC satch' was made in the 10th taxable period of value-added tax, and that the 'PCC satch' did not provide evidence related to the 'PP satch' and the 'P satch satch 10 years after the purchase of the 'PP satch satch' to the 20th taxable period.

C) Meanwhile, the plaintiff, who operates BB ebbbs, whose business attitude is "do retail", asserts that it may issue a tax invoice in the manner of arranging, arranging, and acting as a broker for the products supplied to the plaintiff instead of directly supplying the products. However, each of the tax invoices in this case is not based on the premise that KimCC directly supplied the products to the plaintiff, but rather on the premise that KimCC directly provided the products, mediating, acting as a broker, and arranging, arranging, and acting as a broker, etc., it is not possible to issue a tax invoice in the name of the broker, broker, and agent (see Article 6(5) of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 58(1) and (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act). The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

D) Ultimately, each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a false tax invoice different from the facts entered falsely by the supplier, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax shall prove that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) In the instant case, the circumstances as alleged by the Plaintiff, or the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of, and was unaware of, the supplier’s name listed in each of the instant tax invoices, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C) Rather, the facts acknowledged earlier are the following circumstances that can be comprehensively considered in light of the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff was engaged in the non-ferrous metal industry for several years, and the Plaintiff was able to fully know the actual status of transactions in the above industry and the risk of such transactions, so it was necessary to pay more attention to whether the relevant supplier is the actual supplier prior to commencing transactions in the size of KRW 100 million with the new supplier. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been negligent in ascertaining that the Plaintiff was not negligent in confirming that the supplier was able to supply Kim Dong-dong or Kim Dong-dong, etc., and that the Plaintiff did not know that there was a new transaction in the name of the other party to the transaction, even though it did not appear that the Plaintiff did not know that there was a new transaction in the name of the other party to the transaction.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Whether the principle of protection of trust violates the principle

A) In administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of protecting trust, the first, the administrative agency must express the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, second, the administrative agency should have expressed the public opinion that is the subject of trust to the individual, and with respect to the trust of the administrative agency that is justified, the trust should be protected because it is not attributable to the individual, third, the individual should have trusted the expression of opinion, and third, the administrative agency should have conducted any act contrary to the expression of opinion, fourth, and the administrative agency should have made a disposition contrary to the expression of opinion, thereby infringing on the personal interest in which the expression of opinion was trusted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1096

B) In the instant case, even if the Plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate for the non-performance and non-performance and non-performance and non-performance and non-performance and wholesale retail business issued by the KCC from the KCC head, the business registration certificate is issued by the head of the competent tax office to the head of the competent tax office in order to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax, etc. and secure taxation data, and the Value-Added Tax Act grants the business operator registration to the business operator, which is merely a certificate proving the registration of the business, and does not recognize that the business operator satisfies the qualification or requirements to operate the business accordingly, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the KA head of the competent tax office or the Defendant

C) Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to violate the principle of trust protection, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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