The employee visited the Deputy Director and confirmed the actual property, and the transaction price limit was normal through the account.

As such, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

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

A) Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013)

According to the provisions of paragraph (1) 1 and Article 17 (2) 2, a business operator who actually supplies and a tax account;

If there is a difference between the suppliers under this section, the tax invoice shall be in accordance with Article 17(2)2 of the former Value Added Tax Act

section 33(1)(3)(3)(2)(3)(3).

special company that did not know the name of the gold account statement and did not commit any negligence;

Unless otherwise specified, input tax amounts cannot be deducted or refundable. In such a case, an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services ought to be deemed to be the person who actually conducted a transaction of supplying goods or services to a person who is not a person constituting a nominal legal relationship with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du5538, Aug. 20, 2014; 96Da48930, 48947, Mar. 28, 1997). Meanwhile, in principle, the burden of proving that the transaction constitutes a false tax invoice is borne by the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008).

B) The above evidence and evidence Nos. 3 through 6 were returned to the instant case, and the statement Nos. 3 to 6

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of scrap metal under the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of this case is a third party, not each of the transaction parties of this case, and each of the transaction parties of this case is a disguised trader who issued only the tax invoice to the Plaintiff under his own name, and it is insufficient to reverse the recognition of this case only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 through 10 (including each number). Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts.

1. AA scrap metal is opened on December 1, 2012 and approximately KRW 2.4 billion issued a sales tax invoice for the first period of 2013, and then ccc that is represented by ex officio closure on June 30, 2013, after it issued a sales tax invoice for the amount of KRW 2.4 billion.

From May 4, 2012 to July 9, 2012, in Incheon, only the history of running an entertainment drinking house business for a short period is confirmed, and there is no financial history or any career related to the scrap metal business, and on November 29, 2013, it is confirmed that the homeless was admitted to a shelter for the homeless on November 29, 2013. In addition, the location of the AA scrap metal 250-1, Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Council for a Better Tomorrow Movement, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council for Materials, Storage, and Elderly Rehabilitation Center for the Aged as an incorporated association, is located.

2. ABD sales of approximately KRW 1.2 billion for the first period of January 3, 2013, beginning on January 3, 2013.

After issuing a tax invoice on September 23, 2013, the company closed ex officio on September 23, 2013, and the representative Kimd is a worker at the construction site who is subject to credit information management.The location of the place of business of the Aa resource is Kimd's domicile.

Although Kimd's lease contract was not confirmed, it does not have any way to load scrap iron differently.

③ Each of the transaction parties of the instant case directly supplied the said international lecture to the Incheon Diplomatic Office of the said international lecture without going through the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not confirm where the scrap metal was actually in fact. Meanwhile, according to the transaction details of each financial account in Western and Kimd, the transaction parties, including the Plaintiff, etc., such as the Plaintiff, etc., pay for the scrap metal.

Before making a deposit, 1 to 20,000 won was immediately deposited from a third party, and thereafter, the transaction party is thereafter withdrawn.

Money has been deposited and money has been paid by the plaintiff at the same time as the money has been paid by the plaintiff, and the money has been paid in full again.

The ethical form of fund management, such as Korea, was shown.

④ As such, each of the instant transaction partners causes high sales within the short term after opening the business.

Afterward, the value-added tax has been closed without reporting and paying it, and the representative also has been actually dismissed.

It is difficult to view that a business has been operated.

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

(A) the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are supplied with other tax invoices;

There is no negligence on the part of the person who was unaware of the name of the invoice.

Unless otherwise specified, the person who receives the input tax shall not be entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount, and the person who receives the

The fact that there is no negligence in not knowing the fact that the name was stolen shall be deducted or refunded by the input tax amount.

A person who is the head of the Gu must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) The fact that the Plaintiff received a tax invoice from each of the transaction parties of the instant case

and evidence Nos. 8 and 10 as to whether he/she was unaware of and was not negligent.

According to the statements 1 and 2, the plaintiff received a business registration certificate and the name of the representative before making transactions with each of the business parties of this case, and the transaction amount is the account in the name of the representative of each of the business parties of this case.

Although the fact of deposit can be recognized, the fact of the above recognition alone is that the plaintiff is each business partner of this case.

tax invoices issued by the above companies for the purchase of scrap metal are false tax invoices;

It is insufficient to recognize that there was no negligence on the part of a person who was unaware of the fact and did not know the fact.

There is no evidence to prove.

Rather, the following circumstances are revealed in light of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleading.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff was aware that the actual counterparty of the transaction was not a business partner of this case.

or the actual counterpart of the transaction, or the necessity to investigate the doubt of whether the actual counterpart of the transaction is

It is reasonable to deem that there was negligence by failing to investigate such fact. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem the good faith transaction.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① At the time of the investigation into the data of the Sungdong Tax Code, the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of the AA scrap metal through the dest to which he was introduced as an employee of the A scrap metal, and directly contacted with the maximum scrap metal.

purchase of the scrap metal, and direct contact or contact with the AA scrap metal representative with the SDR.

(3)(2)(3) or(5)(1)(3)(5)(1)(1)(1)(3)(1)(3)(1)(1)(1)(1)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(2)(2)

In this respect, I have submitted explanatory materials to the effect that "(No. 4)" is "(No. 4)."

After that, the representative director Kime of the plaintiff became aware of the introduction of ‘humd' in the course of investigation by the defendant.

LD is a business franchise that receives a referral or recommendation fee from an introduction firm, and that is then transferred.

of this case. The representative of each customer of this case, together with the least D, has introduced other purchasing agencies.

have been visited to this office. The business registration certificate and representative status of the last dddy prior to the transaction.

The plaintiff stated to the effect that "......" is a copy of the evidence (Evidence No. 6).

The circumstances leading up to the commencement of transactions with each customer are not consistently explained; and

In light of the circumstances, the actual operator of each of the instant transaction parties is the largest, dd, and Kimd.

the name of a representative is likely to enter into a transaction with the well-known knowledge that the transaction is only a representative.

c)in person;

② The opening date of each customer of this case recorded on each business registration certificate received by the Plaintiff shall be 2012.

12. As of 28. (A scrap metal) and January 3, 2013 (a) from the time when the first transaction began.

Until now, the storage was transferred, and even based on the statement of the plaintiff representative director, the storage is also a place of business.

There was a location in different areas from the re-place (Sisking-dong). In addition, AA high iron and Aa resources are located.

Despite the registration as a separate entity, the form of name cards of Dod and Kimd is identical;

In this situation, the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the tax invoice is also similar to the form of seal affixed to the tax invoice.

It is necessary to properly investigate whether each customer is a actual supplier or not.

A. However, the Plaintiff visited the location of each business partner of the instant case’s place of business.

The process of receiving a high-amount tax invoice and settling the payment without confirming whether it is a place of business;

and each of the instant transaction parties did not contact with the representative of each of the instant transaction parties, and each of the instant transaction parties did not have any contact.

It appears that there was no verification from the Gu about the procurement of scrap metal by any means;

(c)

③ Business registration certificate verifying that the Plaintiff confirmed with each of the instant transaction partners before commencing the transaction.

of the Value-Added Tax Act to identify taxpayers of value-added tax, etc. and secure taxation data;

The head of competent tax office shall have a person make an application for registration to the head of competent tax office of the workplace.

delivery to the person, the mere certificate evidencing the registration of the business

It is not recognized that a person satisfies the qualifications or requirements that may operate a business by virtue of the foregoing provision (Supreme Court)

The price of scrap metal purchased by the Plaintiff is referred to as “the price of scrap metal” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005)

Plaintiff merely because the Plaintiff was adequate or was not paid the transaction price by itself.

It can not be seen that a person is a trading party with good faith and negligence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims of the plaintiff in this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of 000 won (including additional tax) for the first period of September 1, 2014 against the plaintiff on September 1, 2014 and the imposition of corporate tax of 000 won for the business year 2013 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff was established on July 17, 2009 and operated wholesale and retail business such as steel and scrap metal, and purchased scrap metal, etc. and supplied them directly to the steel industry. B. The Plaintiff received scrap metal from AA scrap metal and Aa resource (hereinafter “instant transaction parties”) during the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2013 and received a tax invoice of KRW 000 (A scrap metal) and KRW 000 (aa resource) in total amount of KRW 100 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”). Based on this, the Plaintiff filed a tax invoice of KRW 100 (the instant tax invoice) with the Plaintiff for an additional tax of KRW 200 (the instant tax invoice) and filed a tax invoice of KRW 100 (the instant tax invoice) and the amount of the additional tax for each of the instant tax for KRW 200 (the instant tax invoice was written as KRW 100) to July 22, 2014, and then the Plaintiff filed an appeal for adjudication for the remaining amount of the additional tax for 2010 years (the instant tax invoice 2014.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff was actually supplied by each of the instant transaction parties and subsequently traded the purchase price by remitting the purchase price. As such, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice.

② Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff, prior to the transaction, received the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate and name, etc., and confirmed each representative.