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

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the business of manufacturing and selling human resources and integration money from the Incheon Western-dong 697-15 block 14 block 16 Emp 16.

B. The Plaintiff received 15 copies of the tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from OO (hereinafter “OO”) during the 2010 taxable period of the second value-added tax, and reported the said value-added tax to the Defendant, and deducted the said value-added tax from the input tax amount.

C. On November 11, 201, the Defendant denied input tax deduction by deeming that all of the instant tax invoices were false tax invoices by the suppliers, and issued the instant disposition to rectify and notify the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second period of No. 2010.

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 7, 2012, but was dismissed on June 18, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff was a normal transaction that actually purchased old interest from O, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice, and even if not, the Plaintiff was unaware of the disguised name of the instant tax invoice, and constitutes a bona fide business operator who did not commit negligence.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

The meaning that the entry in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act is different from the fact is that the necessary entry in the tax invoice is inconsistent with the subject, value, and timing of the actual supply or supply, notwithstanding the formal entry in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

In addition to the above evidence and evidence in Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 7, the purport of the argument is as follows: ① O is confirmed as an enterprise that issued a tax invoice in the second half of 2010 with respect to the whole sales of YGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view thatO did not have the ability to supply the interest of the tax invoice of this case. As long asO did not have the ability to supply the interest of the tax invoice of this case, the person who supplied it to the plaintiff shall be a third party, notO. Thus, the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice in which the third party supplied the interest but the supplier falsely entered the supplier as OO, and it constitutes "tax invoice entered differently from the fact under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409 of Dec. 27, 2010), and it cannot be deemed that the actual transaction between the plaintiff and O was confirmed. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who was provided with the tax invoice was not negligent in not aware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the said name, the person who asserted the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun

According to Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9 (including paper numbers), it is recognized that the plaintiff had the name of the current type of Dao KimCC stated as the representative of the OO, the name of MaoD stated as the director of the OO, and the fact that the plaintiff deposited the payment into the account under the name of OO.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff did not make efforts to confirm the O’s purchase price of the O’s 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' or 's '''' ''' ''' ''' Y-Y-25 years '' and 's 's '' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' ''' '''' ''' ''

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.