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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 49,342,570 on February 5, 2014 against the Plaintiff on February 5, 2014 and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 38,094,650 on the second year value-added tax of KRW 2012 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on August 22, 2007 for the purpose of service contract, human resources supply, employment mediation, etc.

B. During the period from 1st to 1st, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 980,605,590 in total from AA, BB, CCC (hereinafter “CC”); (b) DDR (hereinafter “DDR”); and (c) received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 980,605,590 in total from the purchase place; and (d) filed a value-added tax return after deducting the relevant input tax from the output tax amount. From October 31, 2013 to November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff; (b) determined that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued under the name of the purchase place was the actual transaction of value-added tax and the value-added tax invoice; (c) the Plaintiff succeeded to the input tax invoice of this case for 30 years and 40 years in total; and (d) the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case for 25 years 2014 years in total.

E. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office against the instant disposition, but the said application was dismissed on May 28, 2014, and on August 13, 2014, the said request was dismissed on May 26, 2015, although the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal for the adjudgment on August 13, 2014. [Grounds for Recognition] There was no dispute over the instant disposition, the entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the service from the instant purchaser and paid the service price as indicated in the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice. Nevertheless, the instant disposition denying the relevant input tax deduction on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false is unlawful.

2) Even if the purchaser of this case is a disguised business operator and is not a business operator who actually supplied services to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact and was not negligent in not knowing such fact. Nevertheless, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction pursuant to the tax invoice of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) 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. In such a case, meaning that it is different from the fact that the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and if there is another person to whom such ownership is in fact belongs, the person to whom such entry belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entry of a tax invoice does not coincide with the original entry of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entry of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction, and the actual supplier and the supplier are merely the representative of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice No. 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996.

(1) AA was an enterprise which opened on December 12, 2011 and closed on July 24, 2012, and reported approximately KRW 1.43 billion sales in 201 and 2012, while the purchase amount was not reported, the value-added tax was not paid KRW 140 million.

(2) The Cheongju-gu Cheongju-dong 2985 Ga, the place of business of the AA, is a studio-type residential building, which is the Cheongju-gu Cheongju-dong 2985 Ga, stating that the YG only confirmed that it was for business registration and did not work or reside in the above building, and that the YG used the above building for residential purposes without the house or equipment, so it does not seem that the above building was used as the place of business of the AA.

(3) The MaximumGG, the representative of the AA, did not have been engaged in the manpower supply business at 20 years of age as of 20,000. The name of the branchF, which was known in the course of selective distribution, was leased to the 500,000 won and the amount of profit each month, and the business registration was made by the AAA. The MaximumG and the branchF issued a tax invoice in the name of the AA during the first period of 2012, which was a false tax invoice issued without supplying the actual manpower. However, even in the case of supplying the actual manpower to some businesses, including the Plaintiff, the purchase partner and the contents of the contract were decided, or the Plaintiff’s representative director, who was the Plaintiff’s representative director, was in charge of all affairs, such as gathering human resources recruitment advertisement, and made a statement to the effect that the Plaintiff or the head of the headquarters, who was the Plaintiff, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was present in the ZF in the 2012.

(4) On July 24, 2015, the maximumGG had been sentenced to one year and six months of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor for the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which provides the Plaintiff, etc. with false information in collusion with the F to issue false sales tax invoices after registering the business of the Daejeon District Court on July 24, 2015. The fact that the FF was a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which provides the Plaintiff, and submitted false information to the tax office. On December 19, 2014, the fact that the FF conspired with the largestGGG to issue false sales tax invoices after registering the business of the Daejeon District Court on December 19, 2014 is not sufficient, and the fact that the FF was submitted to the tax office that did not provide the Plaintiff, etc. with false information in the name of the supplier Gap, and it was merely a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act of the Daejeon District Court No. 2013Mo327, 2014 (Consolidated).14).

(1) BB (a) issued a tax invoice of approximately KRW 1.74 billion in total of the supply values for about four months after commencement of business on August 30, 2012, and then reported sales of KRW 1.744 billion in total as an ex officio closed-of-law enterprise in 2012, on the other hand, the purchase amount was not reported, and KRW 174 million in value-added tax was not paid.

(2) On April 5, 2013, the staff of the ZZ in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, a place of business of BB, visited the ZZ, but the said building was not capable of finding out the trace of the place of business as a studio-type residential building. (3) Song KK, the representative of BB, did not contact at the time of the investigation into the ZZ, and did not reside at the place of residence on resident registration, appears to have lent only the name to the MF without any involvement in BB’s business. The MF was the actual operator of BB, and the N0N employed by the MF was in charge of personnel recruitment and on-site management. HH, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was present in the ZZP, and stated to the effect that the Plaintiff, the head of the headquarters of the Plaintiff, was trading through 00NN.

(4) On April 11, 2014, in the Daejeon District Court, from August 30, 2012 to December 31, 2012, 2012, MF was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, a fine of 310 million won, and a prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed and the judgment became final and conclusive on the following grounds: (a) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Calculation) to the effect that, while operating BB in the name of SongK from around August 30, 2012 to around December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff et al. supplied goods or services to the tax office: (b) the total tax invoice was falsely entered as if the Plaintiff et al. supplied goods or services to the Plaintiff, and submitted the BB’s business registration for the purpose of evading tax evasion or compulsory execution.

D) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that: (a) whether a tax invoice issued by CCC is false; (b) evidence Nos. 6; (c) evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, and 8 are different from the facts; and (d) the actual supplier of services listed in B/B’s tax invoice in the name of Emb is a third party, not CCC; and (c) the CCC merely lends the name of the issuer of the tax invoice; and (b) it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition only with the entries stated in evidence Nos. 9, 16, 24-1 through 25, and 25, respectively. Accordingly, the CCC’s tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) On January 1, 2013, the CCC reported the sales amount of KRW 4.798 billion in 2013 as an enterprise closed on June 27, 2013. On the other hand, the purchase amount was only KRW 1.875 billion, and the value-added tax was not paid KRW 462 million.

(2) around December 17, 2012, a representative of the CCC leased the building from 172-5 and 301, Dongdong-dong, Daejeon, the location of the CCC’s business establishment, and it appears that the building was leased for the operation of the CCC, not for the lease of the building to use it as the business establishment of the CCC. Furthermore, the said lease agreement appears to have been agreed upon on January 1, 2013 between the PCC and the existing lessee. Thus, the said building cannot be deemed to have been used as the business establishment of CCC.

(3) 윤&선은 ZZZ세무서의 조사 당시 연락이 되지 않았고 거주불명이었던 사람으로, 윤&선이 실질적으로 CCC을 운영하였다고 볼 만한 아무런 자료가 없다. 오히려 인원 모집 및 현장 관리 등 실질적인 업무는 김$운이 수행한 것으로 보이고, CCC의 매출처인 주식회사 오케이코리아 대표자 길^^는 김##을 CCC의 대표자로 알고 있다.

(4) The ZZina sent a notice to 300 workers, among 2,976 workers under the CCC’s statement of payment, to ask for whether they have worked for the day, and received a reply from 75 members. Of the above 75 members, 60 out of the above 75 members sent reply that they did not have worked for the day, and 15 members cannot memory. The Zinaina and the Zinaina were closed ex officio after the CCC’s failure to pay the value-added tax.

E) Whether a tax invoice issued from DDR is false or not

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual supplier of the services listed in the tax invoice in the name of DDR in this case, among the tax invoice in this case, was a third party, not DDR, and only lent the name of the issuer of the tax invoice. The entries in Gap evidence No. 9 and Gap evidence No. 17 are insufficient to reverse the recognition. Therefore, the tax invoice in the name of DDR constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit. (1) The business operator registered business on February 23, 2012 and registered business on February 23, 2012, about KRW 1,90,000,000,0000,000 won, and about KRW 97,800,000,000,000,000 won.

(2) DDD인더스트리의 매출처는 원고를 포함한 19개 업체이고, 매입처는 주식회사 미yy(이하 '미yy'라 한다), 주식회사건u(이하 '건u'이라 한다), 주식회사 디wwww(이하 '디wwww'라 한다)의 3개 업체인데, DDD인더스트리는 매출처로부터용역대금이 입금되면 그 입금된 날 또는 다음날 입금된 금액의 95%를 매입처의 계좌로 이체하였다. 미yy는 2012. 11. 7. 개업하여 2012년 제2기 매출액 약 1억 2,800만원, 2013년 제1기 매출액 약 7억 5,300만 원을 신고하였으나 부가가치세를 납부하지아니하고 2013. 5. 31. 폐업하였고, 건u은 2013. 6. 24. 개업하여 2013년 제1기 매출액 약 1억 9,500만 원을 신고하였으나 부가가치세를 납부하지 아니하고 직권폐업되었으며, 디wwww는 2012. 4. 24. 개업하여 2012년 제1기 매출액 약 2억 5,600만 원 2012년 제2기 매출액 약 4억 5,900만 원을 신고하였으나 부가가치세를 납부하지 아니하고 2013. 4. 23. 폐업하였다. (3) DDD인더스트리의 대표자인 조ㅈㅈ는 물류회사에서 현장근무한 경험이 있을 뿐 회사를 운영한 경력은 없었던 사람으로 ZZZ세무서에 출석하여 '매입처인 미yy, 건u, 디wwww로부터 공급받은 인력을 매출처에 알선만 해주고 실제적인 관리는 매입처가 하였다. 원고 등 매출처에 공급한 인력이 누구인지 전혀 알지 못하고, 인력관리는 모두 매입처가 하였으며, 인력에 대한 급여도 매입처가 지급하였다. 매출처로부터 받은 금액의 5%를 알선 수수료로 제외한 뒤 나머지를 매입처에 송금하여 주었다'는 취지로 진술하였다. (4) DDD인더스트리와 조ㅈㅈ는 2013. 1. 23. 대전지방법원에서 'DDD인더스 트리의 대표자인 조ㅈㅈ는 미yy, 건u, 디wwww로부터 재화 또는 용역을 공급받지 아니하였으면서 거짓으로 매입세금계산서를 발급받은 후 부가가치세 신고시 거짓으로 기재한 매입처별세금계산서합계표를 제출하였고, 원고 등 업체에 재화 또는 용역을 공급하지 아니하였으면서 거짓으로 매출세금계산서를 발급한 후 부가가치세 신고시 거짓으로 기재한 매출처별세금계산서합계표를 제출하였다'는 취지의 조세범처벌법위반으로 각 벌금 500만 원의 약식명령을 받았고(대전지방법원 2013고약15387호), 위 약식명령은 그대로 확정되었다.

(5) 위와 같은 DDD인더스트리의 거래 형태, 대표자 조ㅈㅈ의 진술, 주요 매입처의 내역 및 부가가치세 납부 현황, DDD인더스트리와 조ㅈㅈ에 대한 약식명령 등을 종합하면, DDD인더스트리는 부가가치세를 납부하지 않고 폐업하는 업체들에 대한 신용확인이나 금융추적을 피하기 위한 중간업체로서, 실제로 원고에게 인력을 공급하지 않았음에도 DDD인더스트리 명의의 세금계산서를 발급한 것으로 보인다.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

A) In light of the above legal principles, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, and the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier who was unaware of the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009). (B) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the above legal principles, whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, and the overall purport of the arguments presented in the above evidence was added to the health account, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, there is no evidence to find otherwise.

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) visited 16.10, 207, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

(6) On July 15, 2015, the facts charged that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director, EH submitted a false tax invoice from the instant purchaser and the false tax invoice to the district tax office having jurisdiction over the district tax office at the district tax office at the time of the return of the value-added tax.

The fact that the judgment of innocence was rendered (Seoul District Court 2014DaMa1912) is recognized (the prosecutor appealeded against the above judgment, but was dismissed in the Daejeon District Court 2015No2357 on August 24, 2016). However, the above criminal judgment was rendered not guilty on the grounds of "the Plaintiff paid the service payment in full to the purchaser of this case", "hH was provided with services believed to be the head of the purchase headquarters of this case, and this would not be deemed to have been proven to have been intentional to receive false tax invoices from this H and submit a list of the false tax invoices by seller." This means that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice of this case was false, and it does not mean that the Plaintiff was not negligent by the Plaintiff. Thus, even based on the facts recognized in the above criminal judgment, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff was a bona fide and negligent act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.