2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 00,00,000, and KRW 00,000,000 for the business year 2010 shall be revoked.

A. On July 17, 2008, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of engaging in the export and import business of used cars. From the first half of the year 2009 to the second half of the value-added tax in 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 1,372,79,34 (=825,39,98 won + 547,399,336 won + 547,336 won (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) in total of supply values as shown in the table, as shown in the list, from the first half of the year 2009 to the taxable period of the second half of the value-added tax, and filed and paid the value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

Taxation Period

Customer Name

Purchase Tax Invoice

Value of supply (cost)

1, 2009

DDUnemployment

47

825,399,998

2010 Second Period

S Motor Vehicles

30

547,399,336

Total System

1,372,79,334

B. However, on February 1, 2014, the Defendant calculated the amount of taxation by denying the deduction of the pertinent input tax amount on the grounds that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice without a real transaction, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000,000, and the value-added tax of KRW 200,000,000 for the second period of 209 in 2010. At the same time, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act even if he was supplied with goods by the business operator, and thus, deemed that the Plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act for the business year 2009, KRW 00,000,000 for corporate tax belonging to the business year 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal on May 1, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on November 17, 2015.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was closed ex officio on September 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional statements), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each disposition of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, as indicated in the instant tax invoice, actually traded as a used motor vehicle between the purchaser and each other. Thus, the said tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice based on the processing transaction.

(2) Even if the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice with false content, the Plaintiff did not know that it was a disguised business operator at the time of trading with each purchaser of this case, and was not negligent in not knowing that it was a disguised business operator. Thus, each disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1. The representative of the SS Motor Vehicle is HH under the business registration certificate, but in fact, AA is operating.

② H stated that he was issued a false tax invoice without actually purchasing or selling a vehicle while operating the SS vehicle when he was examined by the public prosecutor. In particular, H responded to the prosecutor’s question, “I accept a crime list including the tax invoice issued by the SS vehicle,” and “I accept a false tax invoice” in the instant tax invoice, and “I accept it. I do not confirm it. I are the same that it is the content of investigation and accusation at the tax office.”

③ AAA received a suspect examination from a public prosecutor and stated that “In the case of SAA, the name-holder recruitment was in charge of an overseas new exporter, and only the duties of a used vehicle dealer were conducted. The reason why the business process is sent from an overseas new exporter to pay the vehicle price and the fee by the NH N passbook in the name of HH. The reason why the vehicle price is to be paid from an overseas new exporter is that the vehicle price is remitted in order to pretend the purchase of a heavy difference from the low-income company from an overseas new exporter, and the vehicle price received from the SSA car is sent to the account designated by the overseas new exporter.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence Nos. 11, 14, 18, 19 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

(A) Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jul. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. However, the meaning that an entry amount in a tax invoice is different from the fact lies only in the name of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation, and if there is a person to whom such income, profit, or transaction actually belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs is to be liable for tax payment and the other person to whom such tax is applied, regardless of the formal descriptions such as a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service, the requisite entries in a tax invoice refer to cases where the contents of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier and the person to whom the goods or service is supplied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 28).

Therefore, even if there is a transaction of supplying goods, a tax invoice issued by the supplier as a so-called so-called “illegal transaction” between the nominal owner and the nominal owner of the tax invoice shall be deemed to constitute the “illegal tax invoice” as seen earlier.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the part of the tax invoice of this case issued and delivered by the Plaintiff is supplied by a person, other than the SSS car, and it constitutes a “tax invoice with different contents” and the evidence and circumstance cited by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to reverse it. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① HH and AA are those working in optical parts, religious organizations, and active fish distributors even according to their statements. The occupation of HH was a security guard, and the occupation of AAA was a uri company, even at the time when he was examined by a public prosecutor. In light of the social work experience of the representative or the actual manager, the SS vehicle appears to have no ability to operate the business that supplies used cars.

② SSA appears to have not been equipped with facilities to be deemed to have actually operated a business in the place of business registered on the business registration certificate. In 2010 and 2011, only the purchase report was made too small compared to the sales during the second period and the first period of 2011, and it was closed on July 14, 2011.

③ SSA appears to have undergone the process of transferring the amount of money to the Plaintiff’s account as much as much as the payment was made from the Plaintiff. However, it is difficult for a business entity operating the business to continuously refund part of the revenue deposited in the transaction account in social norms. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that it was refunded the sales amount paid in excess of the number of automobiles due to a change in the number of automobiles sold, but there is no objective data to recognize it.

(다) 그러나 앞서 든 증거들에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, DD실업에 관하여는 전말서, 피의자신문조서와 같은 자료가 존재하지 않고(PPP 내지 QQQ에 대한 대면수사가 이루어진 적이 없는 것으로 보인다), 피고가 작성한 조사종결 보고서도 YYY, KKK 등이 작성한 확인서만을 주된 근거로 삼고 있을 뿐인 점, DD실업의 2009년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간 동안의 매출과세표준은 934,164,000원인데 같은 기간 동안의 매입과세표준도 973,569,000원에 달하여 커다란 차이가 나지 않는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고가 들고 있는 증거들만으로는 DD실업이 발급・교부한 세금계산서가 '사실과 다른 세금계산서'에 해당한다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 이를 지적하는 원고의 주장은 이유 있다.

(2) As to the second argument

(A) An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the person who received another tax invoice is unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009): Provided, That in full view of all the circumstances, including the details of issuance and issuance of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, the specific route and process of the goods or services supplied, and whether the recipient was aware of the fact that the supplier was merely the nominal supplier, it is difficult to conclude that the recipient was negligent in not knowing the fact that there was a negligence of the actual supplier’s name.

(B) In full view of the following circumstances, in light of the above legal principles, the evidence and alone cited by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that the name of the supplier of the tax invoice concerning the SS Motor is different from that of the actual supplier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① From among the co-representative directors of the Plaintiff, MF, one of the former co-representative directors, has been working in the company related to automobile export business. Therefore, the Plaintiff seems to have been fully aware of the supply structure and distribution route of used cars and the actual state and risk of widely spreading data transactions in the relevant industry.

② On July 19, 2010, immediately before the transaction with the Plaintiff, HH and AA had no experience in engaging in the automobile-related business. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff appears to have failed to properly investigate the personal information of the aforementioned persons and the capacity to supply goods of the SS vehicle, and did not specifically state the details and process of the transaction with the SS vehicle.

(3) The business registration certificate is delivered to the head of competent tax office by requiring the business operator to apply for registration to the head of competent tax office in order to identify the person liable for the payment of value-added tax, etc. and to secure taxation data, and does not recognize that the business operator is merely a certificate proving the registration of a business fact and meets the qualification or requirement to operate his/her business accordingly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff obtained the business registration certificate from the SSS car and confirmed it, it cannot be deemed that

④ The data submitted by the Plaintiff is merely a certificate of automobile transfer prepared between the representative of the SS Motor Vehicle and HH, and it does not include the date and items of the vehicle actually delivered from the SS Motor Vehicle, the name of the driver (a person who transports the subject vehicle) or the mobile phone number, or the location of the acquisition.

⑤ Meanwhile, despite an accusation by the director of the ○○○ Tax Office, the prosecutor was only indicted on “the portion on which a false tax invoice was issued to the ○○ Global and ○○○○○○○○○○ World, but the circumstance that the SS automobile did not prosecute the part on which it was issued to the Plaintiff is merely that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the facts constituting the offense of the instant accusation case. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was not negligent due to the failure of the Plaintiff to know that the name of the supplier of the instant tax invoice was different from that of the actual supplier. Rather, from August 23, 2010 to July 1, 2011, HH and AA issued a false tax invoice 134, total supply price of 1,940,791,732 won, and that the Seoul Central District Court issued a false tax invoice from August 14, 2014 to the Plaintiff during the suspended execution period of 20 years or more (20 years or more).

(C) Sub-determination

Therefore, among the tax invoices in this case, the portion of the tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff from D Unemployment in the first period of 2009 (total supply price of KRW 825,39,99,98) cannot be deemed to be a different tax invoice from the facts. Thus, the portion of the tax invoice in this case issued that the above portion of the tax invoice in this case is a different tax invoice from the facts, i.e., value-added tax amount of KRW 00,000,000 for the first year of 209, and corporate tax amount of KRW 00,000 for the business year of 209, shall be revoked.

3. Conclusion

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