2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

(4) The imposition disposition of value-added tax on global income for the 209, KRW 204, KRW 32,260, KRW 748,850, KRW 209, KRW 279, KRW 279, KRW 313,790, KRW 279, KRW 208, KRW 206, KRW 208, KRW 207, KRW 208, KRW 207, KRW 208, KRW 206, KRW 208, KRW 367, KRW 207, KRW 208, KRW 206, KRW 207, KRW 208, KRW 206, KRW 367, KRW 207, KRW 208, KRW 206, KRW 208, KRW 207, KRW 208, KRW 208, KRW 208, KRW 2010, value-added tax for the year 2015, KRW 20164, KRW 207.

A. On May 10, 1995, the Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as scrap metal and non-ferrous metal, with the trade name of "B metal" from the inland 206-1 of Pyeongtaek-si on May 10, 1995. On April 4, 2008, the Plaintiff is a person who is in a substantial operation of Aluminium in the name of KimD under the name of "CC" in the name of "CC on April 4, 2008.

B. From 2009 to 2013, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice in the amount indicated in the corresponding column (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from each of the transaction parties listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant transaction parties”), and filed and paid value-added tax by deducting each of the said tax invoices from the output tax amount at the time of filing a value-added tax return for each of the relevant taxable periods, and filed and paying the global income tax at the time of filing a global income tax return for each of the instant tax periods by deducting the tax invoices

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed that each of the instant tax invoices was due to a processing transaction, the input tax amount was not deducted under each of the instant tax invoices; and (b) subsequently notified the correction by adding value-added tax (including additional tax) for each of the relevant taxable periods on the pertinent date indicated in Table 2 attached hereto (hereinafter “the date of notification and the taxable period; and (c) the disposition on February 1, 2013 is specified separately on whether the relevant tax invoices were BB metal andCC.

D. The Defendant calculated the income tax by adding the amount of each of the instant tax invoices to each of the necessary expenses, or by adding the Plaintiff’s income amount to the Plaintiff’s income amount. As a result, the Defendant corrected and notified the global income tax (including additional tax) for each of the respective taxable periods on each of the pertinent dates listed in attached Table 2 Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the date of notification and the taxable

E. On September 9, 2013, the Defendant corrected that the comprehensive income tax in 2010 was reduced to KRW 775,236,850 according to the decision on the objection.

F. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for revocation of the imposition of global income tax in 2009, global income tax in 2010, global income tax in 2010, and global income tax in 2011 on February 5, 2013. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 26, 2013. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for revocation of the imposition of global income tax in 209, global income tax in 2012, global income tax in 209, 2009, 202, 209, 2012, 2012, and 1st value-added tax in 2013. However, the Plaintiff filed an appeal for revocation of the imposition of global income tax in 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 12 through 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

1) Of the instant lawsuit, ① value-added tax for the second period of November 1, 2012, 209, 2010, 1, 2010, 2010, 2, 2010, 1, 2011, 201, 201, 2011, 201, 1, 2012, 1, 2012, 3, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 201, 2011, 201, 201, 201, 1, 2012, 201, 2012, 209, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201, 201.

2) The imposition of KRW 31,235,80 on January 3, 2014 by the first half of the value-added tax in 2009 is only a collection disposition for the collection of the tax finalized by the revised return, and cannot be deemed as a taxation subject to the revocation lawsuit.

3) Since a significant portion of KRW 580,789,100 among the disposition imposing global income tax of KRW 1,356,025,950 on November 1, 2012 is a disposition that does not exist due to the reduction or correction, the lawsuit against it is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the argument above 1

Administrative litigation on any illegal disposition related to tax can not be instituted without going through a decision on a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act), and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant had undergone a request for examination or adjudgment on each disposition as stated in

Therefore, among the above dispositions, the part that seeks revocation of each disposition of imposition of the first-year value-added tax in November 1, 2012, second-year value-added tax in 2010, second-year global income tax in 2010, second-year global income tax in 2013, second-year global income tax in 2011, second-year value-added tax in 2011, second-year value-added tax in 2012, first-year value-added tax in 2010 in 2010, second-year value-added tax in 2010, second-year value-added tax in 201, second-year value-added tax in 201, second-year value-added tax in 201, and first-year value-added tax in 2012 is unlawful.

However, each imposition of value-added tax in 2009 on November 1, 2012, global income tax in 2009 and global income tax in 2011 on February 1, 2013, is unlawful regardless of whether it had undergone the above procedure, regardless of whether it had undergone the following procedure, inasmuch as the subsequent imposition of value-added tax in 209 was absorbing and extinguished.

2) Determination as to the argument above 2

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1, 9-1, and 15 of the evidence Nos. 1, 9-1, and 15, the Plaintiff’s notification that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 31,235,80,00,00,000, plus KRW 31,045,760,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for value-added tax received from EEE on December 24, 2012. < Amended by Act No. 12135, Jan. 3, 2014>

On the other hand, value-added tax is an obligation to pay the same amount of tax as the return when the person liable to pay taxes returns the tax base and amount of tax determined at the time when the person liable to pay taxes returns the tax base and amount of tax. As such, where the person liable to pay taxes fails to pay the amount of tax and without any correction as to the reported matters, it is a collection disposition for the collection of the final tax, and cannot be deemed a tax disposition subject to revocation litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8180, Sept. 3,

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the notice of imposition and collection of KRW 28,045,760, which was January 3, 2014 by the Defendant on January 3, 2014 is unlawful.

3) Determination as to the argument above 3

The Defendant’s rectification of the total income tax in September 2010 as KRW 775,236,850 as seen earlier, but the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the amount of imposition of global income tax in November 1, 2010 was reduced to KRW 747,408,850 on the ground that the amount of imposition of global income tax in 2010 was reduced to KRW 747,40,00 on November 1, 2012, seeking revocation due to the statement of the claim and the statement of the application for modification of the cause of the claim, and thus, the aforementioned defense prior to the merits is without merit (However, the imposition disposition of global income tax in 2010 as of November 1, 2012 was all absorbed into the imposition disposition as of February 1, 2013, which is the revised disposition, and thus both becomes extinct, the subsequent claim for revocation of the imposition disposition of global income tax in 2010 as of November 1, 2012 is inappropriate).

3. Ex officio determination

Among the instant lawsuit, this case’s global income tax on November 1, 2012, global income tax on 2009, global income tax on 2010, imposition of value-added tax on 2009, global income tax on 2009, global income tax on 2009 and global income tax on 2011 are examined ex officio as to each request for revocation of each disposition of global income tax on 201.

In a case where a disposition to rectify value-added tax or global income tax is taken as an increase in the tax base and amount of such tax, the disposition to rectify the said increase shall not only add the tax base and amount of tax originally reported or determined, but also re-determine a single tax base and amount of tax as a whole by including the increased portion, including the tax base and amount of tax. As such, the initial return or determination has lost its independent existence value by absorbing the disposition to rectify the increase, and its effect has ceased to exist, and a taxpayer may also file a claim for revocation of the initial return or determined tax base and amount of tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9596, May

As to the instant case, each of the above dispositions was extinguished by absorbing the disposition of imposition, which was subsequent to the subsequent disposition of increase or decrease, and thus, the part seeking revocation thereof is unlawful.

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. Object and scope of the hearing on the merits

If the instant lawsuit excludes any of the instant claims as seen in paragraphs 2 and 3, the imposition of global income tax in 2011 on February 5, 2013, global income tax in 2009, global income tax in 2012, global income tax in 2009, additional tax 3,190,040 won on global income tax in 209, secondary value-added tax in 2009, second value-added tax in 2012, second value-added tax in 2013, and first-class value-added tax in 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

However, correction that increases the amount of tax initially determined under tax-related Acts does not affect the rights and obligations related to the amount of tax initially determined (Article 22-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). As to the imposition of global income tax in 2009 on January 3, 2014, it cannot be contested against the amount of tax imposed on November 1, 2012 and February 1, 2013 which became final and conclusive without undergoing legitimate pre-trial procedures, and with respect to the imposition of value-added tax on January 3, 2014, the amount of tax subject to the imposition of value-added tax in 209 on November 1, 2012 which became final and conclusive without undergoing legitimate pre-trial procedures.

In addition, the disposition imposing global income tax on February 1, 2011, which was earlier than February 1, 2013, was added to the disposition imposing global income tax in February 5, 2013, which was earlier than the expiration of the period during which the entire trial procedure is possible, is extinguished. However, it is apparent in the purport of the claim that the Plaintiff is only subject to KRW 842,187,720, the increased amount for seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax in February 5, 2013. As such, the amount equivalent to KRW 35,480,440, which was earlier than February 1, 2013, is not subject to determination.

B. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was actually supplied with scrap scrap from the clients of the instant case, and thus, each of the instant dispositions was unlawful on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices was a processed transaction.

C. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 3.

D. Relevant legal principles

Whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods as prescribed by the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the transaction purpose, details, and mode of the transaction, the subject to whom profits accrue, and the payment relationship of consideration, etc. by each transaction. The burden of proving that a specific transaction constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact under Article 39(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act for which the deduction of an input tax amount is denied on the ground that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction for which no actual delivery or transfer of goods is made (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008).

However, in a case where the tax invoice for the transaction of specific goods reported by a taxpayer is proved to the extent that it was prepared in a false manner without receiving the goods, and it is disputed whether it was processed by the tax authority. In a case where it is proved to the considerable extent that the specific transaction alleged by the taxpayer is a processed transaction without delivering the goods, it is reasonable to view that the taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and evidence, should prove that the specific transaction was actually received in such transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du20618, Dec. 11, 2014).

E. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the tax invoices Nos. 3, 5-1, 2, and 9-2, 3, and 4, the imposition of global income tax for 201 on February 5, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff received false tax invoices from EE industry and FF in 201, and the imposition of global income tax for 209 on January 3, 2009 on the ground that the Plaintiff received false tax invoices from EEE in 1, 209 on the ground that the imposition of global income tax for 2012 on January 3, 2014 was conducted on the ground that the Plaintiff received false tax invoices from EE in 201 on the ground that the imposition of global income tax for 2012 was conducted on the ground that the Plaintiff received false tax invoices from EE in 200 on the base date of value-added tax for 203 years and 2014.

Accordingly, the following is examined as to whether each of the above periods of tax invoices is false or false for each of the above transaction parties.

2) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that each tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from the EE machine industry for the above period was prepared without the supply of goods, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 6-1, 4, 58, 59, 10-2, and 18 of the EE machine industry (the first period between 1st and 2012).

① The Plaintiff asserts that an amount equivalent to the transaction amount was paid in cash, and the amount equivalent to the amount transferred to the account was deposited in cash at the same bank branch, etc. on the day or following day on which the deposit was made, and it is difficult to view that the transaction amount was normally paid, such as where the source of a bill is unclear, with respect to the amount treated as a bill.

(2) Although the EE machine industry asserts that it purchased scrap from MM resources, NN resources, etc. during the above period, it is difficult to deem that the aforementioned transaction parties purchased the scrap scrap as above in light of the fact that it was not equipped with the equipment to handle the scrap or that it was immediately withdrawn when the price was deposited, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was no quantity of scrap that can be supplied to the Plaintiff for the above period.

③ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the goods are produced by melting scrap purchased from the customer, and the production quantity of the goods is proportional to the scrap input, and that as long as the Plaintiff produced and sold a considerable amount of products, it is recognized that the Plaintiff purchased a considerable amount of scrap scrap from each of the instant transaction parties. However, there is no data to identify the total quantity of the products produced by the Plaintiff during the said period.

④ On December 16, 2013, the District Prosecutors’ Office issued and issued false sales invoices worth KRW 2,274,530,576,000 for supply price from July 201 to December 2011, 201, including the issuance of false sales slips, even though KimE, who operates the EE machine industry, supplied goods or services to the Plaintiff (BM) from January 1, 201 to June 201, the District Prosecutors’ Office issued and issued false sales invoices worth KRW 5,256,576,00 for supply price of KRW 2,274,530,00 from July 201 to December 201.

⑤ In addition, on July 2, 2014, the district prosecutors’ office received a tax invoice as if there was no supply of goods equivalent to KRW 6.765 billion in total from EE machinery industry, etc. from July 27, 2009 to July 25, 2012, with respect to value-added tax from January 2009 to January 1, 201, with respect to BB metal, as if the Plaintiff had received a tax invoice of KRW 184 billion in 2009 and KRW 956 million in 201, and KRW 646 million in the first half of 201, and KRW 66 million in the second half of 2012, the district prosecutors’ office received a non-prosecution disposition due to the lack of evidence against the alleged suspicion.

This is based on the fact that the transaction specifications, measurement schedules, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff are consistent with the Plaintiff’s change, and it is difficult to verify the authenticity of the above transaction specifications, etc. due to the death of reference KimF. However, it is difficult to deem that only the materials submitted in the above criminal case (Evidence No. 40) conforms to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the scrap scrap industry can be supplied, and whether the price is actually paid.

3) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that each tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from GGG during the above period was actually prepared without the supply of goods, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. In full view of the following circumstances, each of the tax invoices received by the Plaintiff from the GGG during the above period, which is acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 6-2, 4, 59, and No. 10-2, 4, and 20-2, 20, respectively.

(1) The FF is not equipped with equipment to trade scrap, such as scrap manufacturing facilities, exhaustrs, transport vehicles, etc.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the price was paid in cash, and the amount claimed to have been paid in the account was immediately withdrawn in cash, and the bill that was paid for the payment is not clear in its source.

③ Although FF alleged that it purchased scrap from a purified resources, MM resources, etc. during the above period, it is difficult to deem that the FF purchased the scrap as above in light of the fact that the OO resources, etc. are not equipped with the equipment to handle the scrap or that it is immediately withdrawn when the price is deposited, etc., and otherwise, the FF did not disclose the source of acquiring the scrap.

④ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the goods are produced by melting scrap purchased from the customer, and the production quantity of the goods is proportional to the scrap input, and thus, as long as the Plaintiff produced and sold a considerable amount of products, it is recognized that the Plaintiff purchased a considerable amount of scrap scrap from each of the instant transaction parties. However, there is no evidence to find out the total quantity of the products produced by the Plaintiff during the said period.

⑤ On January 8, 2014, the district prosecutors’ office submitted a list of total statements of purchase of value-added tax returns for the second period of time on January 25, 2012, 2012, and submitted false statements as if the Plaintiff was supplied with goods from the FF in fact. On July 25, 2012, the district prosecutors’ office submitted a list of total statements of purchase of value-added tax returns for the first period of time from the FF to the FF, and actually submitted the list of total statements of purchase of value-added tax returns for the first period of time on July 25, 2012. However, even though the Plaintiff was not supplied with goods from the FFF, the district prosecutors’ office did not impose a non-prosecution disposition as to the alleged suspicion that “the Plaintiff falsely submitted false statements as if he was supplied with goods amounting to KRW 1,308,091,750 from the FFF.”

Although the above disposition of non-prosecution is based on the statement of related data and related persons, the data submitted in the above criminal case (Evidence A to No. 28 through 39) cannot be confirmed as to whether it is actually supplied or not to pay the price.

④ In addition, the district prosecutors’ office received tax invoices as if there was no supply of goods equivalent to KRW 6.765 billion in total from FFF during the period from July 27, 2009 to July 25, 2012 with respect to value-added tax on BB metal from January 2009 to July 25, 201. In the same way, the district prosecutors’ office received tax invoices as if there was a supply of such contents. In the same way, the Plaintiff conducted a non-prosecution disposition on charges of tax evasion equivalent to KRW 184 million in 2009 and KRW 956 million in 201, and KRW 66 million in the first half of 2012 and KRW 6.6 million in the first half of 2012.

The above disposition of non-prosecution is based on the Plaintiff’s change in the transaction specifications, measurement schedules, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff, and the representative is unable to verify the authenticity of the above transaction specifications, etc. due to the death of the GG. However, it is difficult to deem that only the materials submitted in the above criminal case (Evidence A, A, No. 42, 43) accords with the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the possibility of the supply of scrap scrap and whether the actual payment is

4) On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a revised return of value-added tax by failing to deduct the input tax amount of the tax invoice received from EEE in the first period of December 24, 2009, and the Defendant imposed an additional tax of KRW 3,190,040 on January 3, 2014 when the Plaintiff did not pay it. As seen earlier, according to the above facts of recognition, the above additional tax was caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the value-added tax by the due date (see, e.g., Article 47-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes) and there are no other circumstances to deem that the above disposition was unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

5) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that each tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from the LL non-ferrous metal during the pertinent period was prepared without the supply of goods, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in the evidence No. 10-3 and No. 21 in the evidence No. 2013.

(1) The LL non-ferrous metal fails to have an open space for storing scrap, and the representative of the LL non-ferrous metal and H stated that it was supplied with the immediate non-ferrous at the site of removal, such as a building, but fails to fully disclose the time, place, etc. at the site of the removal.

② The amount that the Plaintiff paid to the LL non-ferrous metals was immediately deposited in the account of the LL non-ferrous metals, and was withdrawn in cash at the bank and at the bank at the source.

(3) Although the LL non-ferrous metal asserts that it purchased scrap scrap from a Co., Ltd. for the above period, most of the transaction parties did not have any equipment to handle scrap or paid the price, etc., and there is no evidence to deem that the scrap scrap purchased from the rest transaction parties is smaller than the amount of the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to deem that the scrap scrap purchased from the rest transaction parties had the same volume as the Plaintiff supplied the scrap scrap to the Plaintiff.

④ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the goods are produced by melting scrap purchased from the customer, and the production quantity of the goods is proportional to the scrap input, and thus, as long as the Plaintiff produced and sold a considerable amount of products, it is recognized that the Plaintiff purchased a considerable amount of scrap scrap from each of the instant transaction parties. However, there is no evidence to find out the total quantity of the products produced by the Plaintiff during the said period.

6) In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that each tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from the H valve during the above period was actually prepared without the supply of goods, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions in H valve Nos. 6-3, 4, 49, 50, 10-3, 10-3, and 17:

① H valves is a company mainly engaged in the manufacture of piping valves irrelevant to scrap scrap supplied by the Plaintiff, and its place of business (58-1), around April 2009, the ownership of which was transferred to PP camera Co., Ltd., and the factory of HH valves was not operated since May 12, 2009, such as no electric power consumption.

② H valves is a value-added tax for the second period in 2009, and the sales of KRW 402,389,250 to the Plaintiff (B metal) was reported and the total amount of KRW 820,030,000 received by the Plaintiff is very high.

③ The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the goods are produced by melting scrap purchased from the customer, and the production quantity of the goods is proportional to the scrap input, and that as long as the Plaintiff produced and sold a considerable amount of products, it is recognized that the Plaintiff purchased a considerable amount of scrap scrap from each of the instant transaction parties. However, there is no data that can identify the total quantity of the products produced by the Plaintiff during the said period.

④ On June 28, 2013, the District Public Prosecutor’s Office issued a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 2,894,837,350 with respect to BB metal’s 2009 value-added tax and the 1st century’s 2010 value-added tax, and issued a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 2,89,483,735, and the 509,458,343 of the income tax and the 509,458,343 of the income tax were evaded by lack of evidence against the alleged suspicion. This is based on Parkcheon-cheon’s statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was carrying the H valves’s scrap.

However, the Plaintiff asserted that most of the transaction amounts were paid in cash during the above investigation process, u300 only ( approximately KRW 590,000,000 in cash, approximately KRW 290,000 in bills, and KRW 16,00,000 in bills, etc.) was paid by account transfer, and there is no evidence to deem that the payment was objectively made, and Parkcheon-cheon is a person engaged in driving as an employee, and therefore, the above statement about the purchase status of raw materials is difficult to believe, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff asserted that the above disposition of non-prosecution alone was asserted.

⑤ In addition, on July 2, 2014, the district prosecutors’ office received a tax invoice as if there was no supply of goods equivalent to KRW 6.765 billion in total from H valves, etc. from July 27, 2009 to July 25, 2012, with respect to value-added tax in BB metal from the first half of 2009 to the first half of 2012. In addition, the district prosecutors’ office received a tax invoice as if there was a supply of the same content. By the above means, the Plaintiff received a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of tax evasion equivalent to KRW 184 million in 2009 and KRW 956 million in 201, and KRW 646 million in the first half of 2012, and KRW 56 million in the first half of 2012.

The above disposition of non-prosecution is only based on the disposition of non-prosecution on June 28, 2013, which was rendered by the district prosecutors' office prior to the above disposition of non-prosecution, and the plaintiff's assertion is not clearly explained.

7) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the instant lawsuits, the Defendant’s global income tax in 209, global income tax in 2009, global income tax in 2010, 209, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 209 global income tax in 2013, 2010, global income tax in 2010, 2011 global income tax in 2011, 2011, 2011, 201, 2012, 201, 2010, 201, 2010, 2011, 2011, 201, 201, 201, 201, 2010, 201, 201, 203, 205, 2013, 2014.