2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. From July 3, 1981, the Plaintiff runs the wholesale and retail business of electric machinery and tools and machinery tools with the trade name "AA company".

B. The Plaintiff issued a purchase tax invoice of KRW 2,458,722,500 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in the taxable period of value-added tax on January 2006 through January 1, 201, and returned and paid value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C.**** The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, from May 12, 201 to September 13, 201, issued and issued processing tax invoices of approximately KRW 9.6 billion without real transactions to the Plaintiff and 59 companies from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 201, and then notified the Defendant of the taxation data for the Plaintiff.

D. As a result of the investigation into the part of the value-added tax on the Plaintiff, the company that actually supplied the goods to the Plaintiff deemed EE that it is not BB electricity but operated DD companies, and determined that the tax invoice of this case was false, and the input tax amount of the tax invoice of this case was not deducted. On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff added the amount of the value-added tax for the first period of 3,374,910 won, the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 206, 31,317,510 won, 510 won, the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 35,726, 250 won, the amount of value-added tax for the second period of 207, the amount of value-added tax for 43,195, 570 won, the amount of value-added tax for the second period of 207, the amount of value-added tax for 2008 won, 364, 208408 won.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 29, 2012, but was dismissed on March 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claim that the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice

The Plaintiff entered into a transaction with EE from 200 to April 2002, and received BB electricity from EE. However, not only a large scale of companies such as BB electricity holding a large number of agencies, but also a price competitiveness, the Plaintiff purchased electric equipment and appliances from May 2002 while making a transaction with BB electricity. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

2) Good faith and without fault

Even if the tax invoice of this case constitutes EE rather than BB electricity indicated as a supplier under the tax invoice of this case, even if the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff, and thus, constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts, the Plaintiff was a bona fide trading party with good faith that the Plaintiff believed that BB electricity was a real supplier, and that the Plaintiff was a bona fide trading party with no negligence in reliance on the trust and trust of BB electricity by confirming the BB electricity’s business registration certificate, copy of passbook, etc. upon introduction of BB electricity from EE, and concluding that BB electricity was a business entity that is able to believe. The Plaintiff received a estimate, statement, and transaction statement from BB electricity each time the transaction was conducted, and deposited the goods into BB electricity account, and the Plaintiff was able to receive fees according to the sales performance while attempting to operate BB electricity from EE, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be considered to be a business entity that supplied BB electricity.

3) Do and claim for exclusion period of imposition

Since the plaintiff does not constitute an active act that significantly makes it difficult to impose and collect taxes with the intent to evade tax, the exclusion period of five years shall apply. Among each of the dispositions in this case, each of the dispositions in this case was made after the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition, and thus, it is illegal since each of the dispositions in this case was made after the lapse of the exclusion period of imposition.

4) Claim as to unjust underreporting additional tax

The Plaintiff actually traded with BB electricity, and even if not, it was believed that BB electricity was the actual supplier, and constitutes a bona fide transaction party who is not negligent in trusting such fact, and the Plaintiff was difficult to clearly determine whose transaction details are to receive a tax invoice, and the Defendant alleged that the transaction between BB electricity and the Plaintiff was a disguised transaction. The Plaintiff’s disguised transaction, unlike the fictitious transaction, cannot be deemed to have unfairly reduced the amount of value-added tax, should be applied to the Plaintiff, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Plaintiff and BB electricity transaction were alleged to be a disguised transaction.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Sales and purchase details reported by BB Electricity from 2006 to 2010 are as follows.

2) FF, the representative director of BB electricity, was FF on September 9, 201 *** under investigation by the National Tax Service, and stated to the following purport:

Of the purchase price of KRW 22,578,00,000, which was issued by BB Electricity by sale of electrical appliances, the amount exceeding KRW 2,026,00,000 is either the data that was issued only without the supply of the goods, or the data that was actually issued only the tax invoice without the supply of the goods, but the transaction items were written differently as the electrical appliances.

In the market, most of the transaction partners of butane gas was a miscellaneous wholesale market that makes cash transactions for domestic use or restaurant in the market, but they do not want to receive a tax invoice. ( generally), most of the sales of butane gas sold in BB electricity was traded as non-material without issuing a sales tax invoice. Therefore, in order to pay the value-added tax not received from the miscellaneous wholesale, the sales item was falsely entered into the sales item as an electrical appliance and issued only the sales tax invoice without real transactions.

○A Co., Ltd. issued a tax invoice in the name of BB Electric because it is a customer of DDA Co., Ltd., which operates the wholesale of electrical appliances in the vicinity, in the name of BB Electric Co., Ltd. as a partner of DDA Co., Ltd., and immediately deposited in AA Co., Ltd., paid to EE by withdrawing the amount excluding the value-added tax.

Purchase of Sales Related to Items

21,711,00,000 won (96%) 2,026,00,000 won (2%) for electric equipment, etc.

Bane Gas, etc. 991,00,000 won (4%) 19,578,000,000 won (95%)

Other-309,000,000 won (3%)

Total 22,702,00,000 won (100%) 21,913,000,000 won (100%)

3) On August 16, 2012, FF is sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for one year for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the following criminal facts (Seoul Central District Court* 2012 order***), the FF and the prosecutor did not appeal against it, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time). On the above criminal facts, as part of the instant tax invoice, the date of preparation is included in the tax invoice from April 30, 2007 to December 31, 2010.

FF is the representative director of BB electricity for the business purpose of selling electrical appliances on the corporate register and operated BB electricity mainly for the business purpose of purchasing but selling or selling it directly to the general public, from GG industry, etc. FF, rather than selling electrical appliances. The FF, however, intended to provide a list of the tax invoices by sales place stating false details in the tax office without supplying goods or services to the customers of electrical appliances, etc. in order to make the sales data necessary for the return of value-added tax return instead of issuing false sales tax invoices at the tax office.

FF: (a) around July 25, 2007, at BB electrical office; (b) filed a final tax return for the first period of value-added tax in 2007; (c) around April 1, 2007, from around June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2007, the FF, even though there was no supply of all equipment to the transaction parties, such as HH and JJ Construction Co., Ltd., the FF prepared and submitted a total of 531,26,050 won tax invoices by customer from around 15 times every time until January 25, 201, including that the total of 7,018,587,218 won was falsely prepared and submitted to the competent tax office.

As a result, FF did not supply goods or services, entered a list of total tax invoices by customer and submitted it to the government.

4) According to the transaction details of the National Bank Account (Account Number: 0***-01-******-4*) in the name of BB electrical name, most of the companies recognized as having prepared a tax invoice as if the FF supplied all the equipment, including the Plaintiff, was deposited in the above account, and most of the companies, including the Plaintiff, which were recognized as having supplied the equipment, were deposited in the above account as if the FF did not supply the equipment.

5) On September 20, 201, EE issued a written confirmation of transaction (Evidence No. 5) to an investigating official with the following content:

○ I have the mandate to represent DDR companies selling electric equipment in Cheongcheon, in addition, I have the honor to assist in the business of BB electricity selling electric equipment at the retail of that equipment, and to accept fashion in accordance with the result of the sale of the goods.

During the purchase of goods, I became aware of the staff of the AA company who visited the DD company for the purchase of goods and commenced the sale of all machinery and materials.

At the first time, the estimate presented by the AA company was supplied with goods with competitive competitiveness, and thereafter, it was delivered to the AA company by facsimile or wire, and it was also delivered to the A company or delivered directly to the A company employees at the Cheongcheon Parking Lot with specifications of transaction.

○ The tax invoice confirmed AA's accounting personnel and transaction amount, and then delivered the tax invoice to a person who issues and delivers goods in the name of BB Electric, and the amount of goods was deposited into the bank account of BB Electric.

EE was investigated on May 24, 2012, May 30, 2012, May 30, 2012, and June 5, 2012, and stated as follows:

Statements made by the court on May 24, 2012

On the other hand, it is true that goods are between BB and AA. However, from the viewpoint of AA, I knew himself as a BB electrical employee, and even though he knew whether he was to issue a tax invoice in the name of BB electrical, I knew that he was not aware of whether he was to issue a tax invoice in the name of BB electrical, and that he would be dismissed for all machines transacted.

Of the goods supplied to the ○○A company, 2/3 degree of 1/3 degree of 2/3 degree of 2/3 degree of DD goods were those supplied to the ○A company, but combined with them were supplied to the A company, and when the AA company pays the price to the BB electricity, the amount less the purchase amount was refunded.

Since there are many items that are not within ○○, they were purchased from BB electricity, and at the same time they were purchased on a small quantity.

Statements made by the State on May 30, 2012

The goods supplied to the ○A company were supplied as BB electrical goods because there are no substantial parts of the goods supplied to the ○A company or lack of quantity. However, it is reasonable to view that BB electrical goods are supplied to the AA company by having the goods purchased from BB electrical goods, not by having the goods supplied to the BA company but by having the goods supplied to the BB company directly.

○B electricity was actually supplied to AA company with electric equipment and materials.

Statements made by the court on June 5, 2012

The unit price was determined by attaching 3% to 5% of the unit price known by preparing a statement of transaction from BB electricity to B, and attaching 3% to B. A company sets a unit price without any margin if the price is at a low level.

When the internal government supplied BB electrical goods to AA company, it supplied BB electrical goods together, and attached 3-5% to BB electricity to the amount known to BB electricity to B. This is a kind of introduction cost.

On the other hand, EE made a statement of transaction in BB electrical name (Evidence A 3) kept by the Plaintiff.

6) On September 201, 201, LL, an employee of the Plaintiff, issued a written confirmation of transaction content (Evidence No. 6) to the investigating official as follows.

While visiting Cheongcheon Commercial Building for the purchase of ○ electric equipment, EEE of the Dacheon Commercial Building was met. As a result of a result of a large number of business operators' estimation, EE is the same company while supplying electric equipment and materials, EE is the same company, and claims the price by issuing BB tax invoice for the BB electricity while engaging in transactions with competitiveness.

In the first place, EE delivered goods and transaction specifications under BB electrical name by facsimile or wire with small amount of transaction, and some of the employees received specifications of goods and transaction from Cheongcheon-cheon's public parking lot while they return to the company after delivery to the company.

7) FF deposited 109,016,000 won (= KRW 5,00,000 + KRW 6,162,000,000 + + KRW 10,000,000 + + KRW 36,000,000 + + KRW 21,854,000 + KRW 21,854,000) in 208; and KRW 9,400,000 in 208 (= KRW 4,400,000 + KRW 5,00,000).

On the other hand, *****The Commissioner of the National Tax Service asked each of the above companies whether the cashier’s checks issued in the account under BB Electric was deposited in the account of MM cable, corporation* cable,******** Industrial Co., Ltd. and NB Electric, and these were not traded with BB Electric, and they were only traded with DB Electric Co., Ltd.

8) EEE은 2007년부터 2010년까지 **상사, **상사를 운영하는 OO로부터 재화나 용역을 공급받은 사실이 없음에도 매입세금계산서를 교부받았다(OO는'2007. 7.경부터 2011. 1.경까지 부가가치세 확정신고를 하면서 실제로 재화 또는 용역을 공급한 사실이 없음에도 공급한 것처럼 허위 매출처별세금계산서합계표를 작성하여 제출하였다'라는 등의 범죄사실로 형사처벌을 받았다(서울동부지방법원 2011고합***호, 서울고등법원 2012노***호). 또한, 주식회사 PP케이블은 2007년, 2008년에 EEE에게 전선자재 및 부자재를 공급하면서 세금계산서는 QQ상사로 발행하였고, '**케이블'을 운영하는 RRR은 2008년, 2009년에 EEE에게 전선자재 및 부자재를 공급하면서 세금계산서는 QQ상사 또는 **상사로 발행하였다.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap's 3 through 6, 10 evidence, Eul's 2 through 12, and this court * result of an order to submit financial transaction information to a bank * The purport of the entire pleadings.

D. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the person who actually supplied the machinery and materials to the Plaintiff is EE rather than BB electrical, and the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① The FF, the representative director of the BB Electric, stated to the effect that the Plaintiff was the customer of EE who operated the DD Commercial, that the Plaintiff was issued a tax invoice without any pressure from the tax authorities, and that the BB Electric was paid to EE by withdrawing the amount excluding value-added tax in receipt of deposit money from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was punished for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the Seoul Central District Court******* because the Plaintiff was punished for the violation of the FF's Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (if the instant tax invoice is recognized as the processed tax invoice, the FF would benefit from the refund of the value-added tax already paid, and the purchase of the pre-paid material was made without material when the Plaintiff purchased the pre-paid material, and thus, the Plaintiff could not present the purchase data at the time of the tax investigation. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the FF would not have been subject to criminal punishment on the grounds that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to receive criminal punishment on the grounds that it was false for the Plaintiff to use the same as the instant tax invoice.

② The Plaintiff deposited KRW 1,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 later, if it was deposited in the bank account under BB electrical name **************** there was no transaction with BB electrical, and there was only transaction with EE., and the FF deposited KRW 9,016,00 in 2006 with EE account (FF paid to EE is more than the fee claimed by EE to have been paid from F).

③ EE is carrying out the delivery of electric equipment, etc. with the trade name of ‘DDA company'.

④ From 2006 to 2010, BB electricity is related to the butane gas. The part related to the electric power equipment is 2% and the value of which is over KRW 2,026,00,000. However, an enterprise that purchases but sells butane gas does not prepare a tax invoice and supplies but supplies but supplies but provides the same with non-data. Therefore, it is difficult to readily understand that BB electricity supplied the Plaintiff a total supply price of KRW 2,458,72,50,00 in total from January 1, 2006 to January 1, 201.

⑤ EEE은 2007년부터 2010년까지 QQ상사, **상사를 운영하는 OO로부터 재화나 용역을 공급받은 사실이 없음에도 매입세금계산서를 교부받았고, 주식회사 PP케이블이나 RRR로부터 전기자재 등을 공급받으면서 세금계산서상의 공급받는 자는 QQ상사, **상사로 기재된 세금계산서를 교부받는 등 가공거래, 위장거래를 해왔다.

2) As to the assertion of good faith and negligence

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier shall not be entitled to deduct or refund the relevant input tax amount, and the fact that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the above fact shall be proved by the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In light of the volume of transaction between the supplier and the nominal supplier, if there was a sufficient reason to suspect whether the person who received the tax was not the nominal supplier

B) We examine the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s assertion and the E-E-E- ****** the Plaintiff’s statement at the National Tax Service, while making a transaction with E-E-E- - from 200 to 4 April 2002, the Plaintiff continued to receive a transaction statement in the name of BB electricity and BB electricity, and the tax invoice were issued from E-E-E in spite of having changed transaction partners from May 2002. Since 1981, the Plaintiff was engaged in the sales business of electric equipment and machinery tools since 1981 and traded with E-E for more than 2 years, and there was no evidence or lack of sufficient evidence to find that the Plaintiff did not know of the relations with BB electricity, whether the E-electric supplier was BB electricity or not, and there was no other evidence or evidence to find that the Plaintiff did not have any contact with BB from the point of view of the Plaintiff’s negligence.

3) Do and claim for exclusion period of imposition

A) According to Article 26-2(1) and (4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830, Dec. 31, 2007); Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007; Article 12-3(1)1 of the former Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21316, Feb. 6, 2009); Article 19(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010); Article 26-2(1) and (4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 1981, Dec. 1, 2007; where a taxpayer evades tax or obtains refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful acts, the exclusion period of imposition and collection of value-added tax should be 10 years.

B) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant tax invoice issued through a disguised transaction was submitted to the tax authority by means of a deceptive scheme or other fraudulent act with the intent to evade tax, and that the Plaintiff made it impossible for the Plaintiff to discover the taxation requirement of the tax authority or caused the tax authority to make a mistake, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the exclusion period of imposition of each value-added tax for the first and second term portion in January 2006, and for the first term portion in January 2007, 5 years.

(1) Unlike a disguised transaction, there is no value-added tax that can be evaded or deducted by means of appropriating processing expenses, etc. because of the substantial supply of goods.

② The instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as either impossible or considerably difficult to impose or collect by the tax authority due to the submission to the tax authority.

③ The Supreme Court held that even if a taxpayer who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return in accordance with the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007), commits a fraudulent or other unlawful act, the exclusion period of imposition should be five years in principle, if the taxpayer evades national taxes or does not receive refund or deduction, and that even if the relevant taxpayer participated in tax evasion, etc. of another taxpayer, the exclusion period of imposition should not be determined differently unless there is a tax evasion (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du16974

C) Therefore, with respect to each value-added tax for the first and second years of 2006 and each one year of 207, five years of exclusion period stipulated in Article 26-2(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) shall apply. The imposition of value-added tax for the first and second years of 2006, and for the first period of 2007, each of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2006 (the following day of July 25, 2006, which is the filing deadline of value-added tax for the first period of 206,006) was made on July 26, 2006 (the first day of July 25, 2006, which is the filing deadline of value-added tax for the second period of 20,007 (the filing deadline of value-added tax for the second year of 206).

4) As to the assertion regarding unjust underreporting penalty

A) According to the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 830, Dec. 31, 2007; Act No. 8830, Jan. 26, 2008; Act No. 9263, Jan. 1, 2009; Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; Act No. 100, Feb. 1, 2010; Act No. 10655, Jan. 1, 201; Act No. 20635, Dec. 31, 201; Act No. 20635, Feb. 1, 2007; Act No. 20635, Jan. 1, 201; Act No. 20635, Feb. 1, 201; Act No. 20635, Feb. 1, 2017>

B) On the other hand, as seen earlier, the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, and the Plaintiff knew or was negligent in not knowing that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice. Thus, the Plaintiff’s application for input tax deduction on the instant tax invoice constitutes a case where the Plaintiff under-reported the tax amount due to one of the unlawful methods, false certification or false document (false evidence or false document). Therefore, it is lawful that the Defendant applied for an unfair under-reported additional tax rate to the Plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, the imposition of value-added tax for the first and second years of 2006 among each of the dispositions in this case, and for the first period of 2007, shall be revoked as it is unlawful. The imposition of value-added tax for the second and first years of 2007 shall be lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.