○ Kim

Daejeon director of the tax office

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. From July 4, 2006, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Special Metropolitan City metal”) made a decision on January 17, 2012 on the commencement of rehabilitation procedures and appointment of a manager for the highest number of representative directors as a custodian on January 26, 2012, while engaging in the non-ferrous metal manufacturing business from ○○○-ri, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 4, 2006.

B. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 201, the metal of △△△△ (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) received a tax invoice corresponding to the details of purchase as indicated in each of the instant tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) from each of the following transaction partners (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant transaction partners”), and subsequently deducted the input tax amount according to the said tax invoices from the output tax amount, and filed a return

C. On March 6, 2012, the Defendant denied the deduction of the relevant input tax amount on the ground that each of the instant transaction partners in the order of Nos. 1 through 5 issued a false tax invoice without real transaction (so-called “raw materials transaction”) by each of the instant transaction partners, and accordingly, the Defendant adjusted the increase in the tax amount of KRW 3,315,458,780 (including additional tax) in 201, on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices issued by the Doi-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City was a false tax invoice issued by each of the said transaction partners. (hereinafter referred to as “disposition on March 6, 2012”).

In addition, on November 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice (the so-called “materials Trade”) from each of the transaction partners of this case to each of the transaction partners of this case, and thus, on the ground that each of the tax invoices of this case issued from the above transaction parties is also a tax invoice different from the fact, the Defendant denied the relevant input tax deduction and adjusted the increase in the value-added tax amount of KRW 258,096,570 (including additional tax) for the first period of 1, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “disposition”), and each of the above dispositions added up to the above dispositions to the 3,573,55,350 won for the final increase in value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition taken on March 6, 2012 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 27, 2012, but was dismissed on June 29, 2012. On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 7, 2013, but was dismissed on May 14, 2013. The Plaintiff was dismissed on May 14, 2013. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute with the grounds for recognition, each of the entries (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) in Gap’s 1 through 4, and 132 through 135, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since △△ Metal purchased the waste Dong, etc. equivalent to the value of supply stated in each of the instant tax invoices from each of the instant transaction parties, each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice.

Even if each of the transaction parties of this case falls under the so-called data, in light of the fact that, at the time of transaction, the △△ metal was unaware of such fact, visited and confirmed the office at the time of transaction, and paid the price to each transaction partner’s account in the name of each transaction, and written measurement confirmation stating the measurement date, vehicle number, name, weight, figures volume, etc. at each transaction, and written the driver’s signature and telephone number on the confirmation document, it is difficult to deem that there was negligence on the △△ metal

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that each of the tax invoices of this case shall not be deducted from the output tax amount if the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts. The meaning of a difference is that the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts. This refers to cases where the necessary entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person who actually supplied or is supplied the goods or services, despite the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties with respect to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). With respect to this case, evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2, evidence Nos. 30-1, evidence No. 59-1, evidence No. 59-1, evidence No. 79-1, evidence No. 136-1, No. 136-1, No. 7, No. 1 through 7, No. 133-1 through 7, No. 8-1 through No.

① All of the transaction partners of the instant case closed their business without reporting and paying value-added tax, and all of the audit results constituted “data” and accused the prosecution.

② Although the lecture date registered as the representative director of H (hereinafter referred to as “H”) had never been engaged in the scrap metal-related business prior to the date of registration of business on January 7, 201, H reported that H had engaged in sales of KRW 22,516,00,000, purchase of KRW 21,976,000,000 until the closure of business on June 30, 201. As a result of the tax investigation, H’s new scrap metal and large resources claimed by H as the purchaser were also determined as materials without any substantive substance.

③ In around 2008, Song (MMMM metal) reported that the sales amount of KRW 46,600,000 and the sales amount of KRW 470,000 were traded until September 7, 201, after its business registration was completed on August 26, 201, even though there was only the volume of the automobile maintenance company’s work at the automobile maintenance business, and there was no entry in the type of business engaged in the scrap metal-related business. After its business registration was completed on September 7, 2011, it reported that the sales amount of KRW 46,60,000 and the sales amount of KRW 470,000 were traded. In the course of its tax investigation, it was impossible to submit the purchase data corresponding to the sales tax invoice (E

④ Although SongB (Seoul metal) reported that the business was conducted on August 15, 201 after its business registration was completed on the date of closure on March 7, 2011, the sales amounting to KRW 9,928,000,000, and KRW 275,000,000,000 from the date of its closure on March 7, 201, although it was not submitted any purchase data corresponding to the sales other than the details purchased from the three non-ferrous metal, it was an enterprise accused of the said non-metallic metal data.

⑤ AD (D) reported that it was engaged in a business of KRW 41,653,00,000, purchase amount of KRW 138,000,000 until July 5, 201 after its business registration was made on December 9, 201, even though the fact that it was engaged in the closed wholesale retail business was not verified, and was in a bad credit standing condition. However, at the time of its tax investigation, even though it was stated that the purchase details equivalent to the total amount reported were not disclosed at all at all at the time of its tax investigation, it was insufficient to submit financial data or loan certificates, etc. related to the commencement of the business, while it was stated that the sales amount was prepared from the relative or the bond business operator. When the sales amount was deposited into the account of DD principal, it was immediately transferred to several principal accounts in the name of several principal and subsequently withdrawn in full in cash.

6. On January 3, 201, the ChoCC reported the closure of business on June 30, 201, in which the amount of KRW 4,913,00,000 was in arrears after its business registration on January 3, 201. Although it reported that it was operating a business of KRW 49,258,00,000 during the said business period, it failed to submit all the data related to purchase corresponding to the sales tax invoice during the tax investigation.

7) The KimGG (Large Resources) issued sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 22,287,00,000 for six months after registering as a wholesale and non-stock business, without paying value-added tax of KRW 2,22,00,000, and closed on June 30, 2011. Upon the commencement of a tax investigation, the contact was discontinued, and there was no purchase related to the closed Dong during the first taxable period of January 201, and if the sales amount was deposited into the account of KimG himself/herself, the sales amount was immediately transferred to several accounts in its name and subsequently withdrawn in full in cash.

(8) On August 26, 2010, LY (YY) closed its business on September 7, 2011, when it issued sales tax invoices of an amount equivalent to 380,000,000 won without purchase during the first half of the value added tax period of value added tax for the first half of the year 201, and did not pay value-added tax of an amount of value-added tax of an amount of KRW 42,00,000,00. While it was under tax investigation, LY was merely a one-time worker in the remaining resources in 2009, and even while it was under tax investigation, it could not be identified as to the purchaser without submitting any objective data on the purchase funds and methods of purchase related to the termination of the agreement under the above transaction statement. In addition, if the sales amount was deposited into the account of the principal, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant transaction parties is not the one of the instant transaction parties, but the Plaintiff is the one that actually purchased each of the instant tax invoices in the name of each of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(d) Whether the metal of △△△ is of good faith and without fault;

1) An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the name of the supplier, and the fact that the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount did not know the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002; 200Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). However, in cases of waste resources such as waste Dongdong, it cannot be deemed that the person who received the relevant goods is a disguised enterpriser due to their distribution structure and characteristics, and thus, there is sufficient reason to suspect the other party as a disguised enterpriser in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a qualified person to transactions, the other party is negligent in knowing the fact that the other party was a disguised enterpriser (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 1997).

(1) The metal of △△△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City has received a delivery proposal from each customer of the instant case and received a business registration certificate, a copy of passbook, a copy of identification card, and the name of the representative before commencing transactions

(2) In addition, the new or bestS representative of the Si/Gun/Gu metal visited most of the business sites of the instant transaction parties in order to check and keep the name of the signboard on the spot.

③ At each time the vehicle is supplied by each customer of the instant case with waste-dong, etc., the vehicle’s price was confirmed by classifying the waste-dong, etc. from each other, and the price of supply was determined through the procedure to determine the volume of figures, and then written a written confirmation of measurement was prepared. The vehicle number, the name of the company, the measurement sheet stating the date of measurement, the vehicle’s name, the weight, and the vehicle’s entry and exit, and the screen tallying sheet stating the class and weight

④ The metal of △△△△ was transferred to a passbook in the name of each transaction partner on the date near the issue date of tax invoices, rather than the value of supply calculated through measurement.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the following facts were revealed: (a) △△ Metal was making efforts to confirm whether it actually engaged in the sales of waste Dong, etc. before commencing the transaction with each of the transaction parties in this case; (b) △△ Metal made efforts to confirm whether the actual goods have been transported from each of the transaction parties in this case even in the process of being supplied with waste Dong, etc. from each of the transaction parties in this case; and (c) △△ Metal was transferring the normal price to each of the transaction parties in the name of each of the transaction parties in this case; and (d) there was no abnormal transaction, such as the fact that the unit price of waste Dong, etc. supplied by each of the transaction parties in this case was considerably lower than the ordinary transaction price, the Plaintiff did not know that the name of each of the supplier of the tax invoice in this case was different from the actual supplier; and (b) there was no negligence in not knowing the fact.

4) The Defendant: (a) as the waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free waste-free

However, in the case of waste resources, such as waste metal, which are subject to the instant transaction, it is practically difficult to confirm the so-called “waste purchase route” of the so-called Defendant’s assertion that he purchased the waste metal (small scrap metal) in the middle of which he/she directly trades with the manufacturer of metal such as Do, in which small scrap metal is sold on the market. Moreover, it is difficult to determine that the transaction of waste metal was not carried out by the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) it is difficult to determine that there was a lack of direct payment of value-added tax for each of the following reasons; and (b) it is highly likely that the transaction agreement would not be disclosed as trade secrets of the customers; and (c) it is difficult for the Defendant to determine that there was a lack of direct payment of value-added tax by the supplier of the waste metal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da106500, supra; and (d) it is difficult to conclude that there was a lack of direct payment of value-added tax-added tax prior to the Plaintiff’s’s demand.

5) Ultimately, the instant disposition is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.