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

Value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff on March 2, 2015 by the Defendant on March 2, 2015, KRW 6,528,160, and year 2011

The first term portion shall be 16,375,470 won, second term portion in 2011, 4,443,820 won, second term portion in 2012, 224,683,860 won, second term portion in 2013, 152,385,210 won, second term portion in 2013, 110,87,230 won for second term in 2013, and second term portion in 2010, for 746,460 won for business year in 2010, for 14,275,50 won for business year in 2011, for 29,374,280 won for business year in 2012, for 36,276,620 won for business year in 2013.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition as stated in Paragraph (2) of the same Article, and therefore, the Administrative Litigation Act is the same.

Article 8 (2) of this Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is.

2. Parts which are dismissed or added in the judgment of the first instance; and

(a)No. 16 of the Chapter 8, "No. 4," "No. 17," "as well as "judgment" of the same paragraph of the same paragraph of the same Act;

In the instant disposition, it is reasonable to deem that there was no negligence on the part of the value-added tax on the instant disposition, and that the part of the value-added tax among the instant disposition, which was rendered by the Defendant, was illegal, since it is reasonable to deem that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff due to the failure of such knowledge. As such, the part of the value-added tax on the instant disposition, which was made by the Defendant

(b)in paragraph 1 of Article 12, the following shall be added:

“E. Determination on the part of corporate tax during the instant disposition

A corporation that is supplied with goods or services in connection with its business must receive documents provided for in any of the subparagraphs of Article 116(2) of the Corporate Tax Act from a person who actually conducted a transaction for supplying goods or services. Thus, the corporation is a person who actually conducted a transaction for supplying goods or services.

If no evidential document is received from the other party, it is subject to additional tax pursuant to the main sentence of Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and even if such a corporation receives evidentiary documents from a person other than the person who actually supplied goods or services, it is not different (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24654, Apr. 26, 2012).

On the other hand, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under the tax law violates various obligations such as reporting and tax payment under the tax law without justifiable grounds.

Administrative sanctions imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax-related Acts, which are those imposed by taxpayers

If there is a circumstance in which it is deemed that the performance of the duty cannot be expected significantly, and there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the performance of the duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Du2330, Feb. 10, 201; 2010Du1622, Apr. 28, 201).

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff received tax invoices prepared differently from the actual ones from the purchaser of this case, but did not receive tax invoices from the actual supplier of the scrap metal, but on the other hand, the plaintiff did not receive tax invoices from the supplier of this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances described in Paragraph 2-D above, the Plaintiff received tax invoices related to the instant scrap metal transaction from the purchaser, and intended to perform the obligation to receive evidential documents under the Corporate Tax Act, but it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff failed to perform the said obligation as a consequence because the purchaser was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was a disguised business, even though he paid due attention, and therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that the Plaintiff, without negligence, who was unaware of the fact that the purchaser was a disguised business operator, would have to receive tax invoices from the actual supplier of the instant scrap metal separately from the aforesaid ones, and therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not be any omission of his duty.

Therefore, since additional tax can not be imposed on the plaintiff, the part of the corporate tax of this case, which was imposed by the defendant on different premise, is also unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.