2. The director of the tax office;

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

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant XX Head of the tax office’s imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010, the second period of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, and DefendantO head of the tax office’s imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011, respectively, shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who runs a high-speed wholesale business from February 27, 2007 with the trade name of “AA industry”.

B. In 2010, the Plaintiff received each tax invoice from the BB industry (hereinafter “B industry”) during the first taxable period of the value-added tax, which is the aggregate of supply values from the BB industry during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, fromCC (hereinafter “CC”) during the second taxable period of the value-added tax, which is the aggregate of supply values from the BB industry andCC (hereinafter “Purchase”) and paid the value-added tax to the head of the relevant tax office, including the relevant supply value in the input tax amount subject to the deduction, and filed a return on the amount of value-added tax for 2010 by including the said supply value in the necessary expenses with the head of the relevant tax office.

C. On December 1, 2011, the Defendants deemed the instant tax invoice to be a tax invoice different from the fact, and Defendant XX head of the tax office notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 000 and KRW 000 of the global income tax for the first period of value added tax in 2010 and KRW 000 of the second period of value added tax in 2010, respectively, for the Plaintiff on the same day.

D. On February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 20, 2012. On December 24, 2013, the Tax Tribunal determined that KRW 00,000 equivalent to the total value of supply of the instant tax invoice, as necessary expenses, should be included in the necessary expenses, and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.

E. According to the above decision of the Tax Tribunal, the head of the Defendant OO head of the tax office corrected the amount of the global income tax for 2010 won for the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition” in total, including the imposition disposition of the respective value-added tax on December 1, 201 by Defendant XX head of the tax office and the remaining portion of the global income detailed and disposition on December 1, 201 by Defendant O head of the tax office.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 14, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number);

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the instant purchase price and subsequently traded normally by remitting the purchase price, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party with the duty of care required for ordinary transactions, and thus, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

A) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to cases where the contents of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the entity that actually supplied or is supplied with the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996).

B) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff from the instant purchaser constituted a tax invoice written differently from the fact, and the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 10 through 13 are insufficient to follow-up, solely on the basis of the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 20. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) On January 10, 208, BB industry was established at the place of business of OOdong O and 1st floor in Daegu-gu OOdong, Daegu-gu, and the location of the above location was the multi-household housing owned by the representative director with no space for pulmonary Dong, etc. In addition, BB industry is not holding tangible assets, such as inventory assets, land, buildings, machinery, vehicle transport equipment, etc., in addition to cash and cash assets in its balance sheet as of December 31, 2010, and there is no wage paid during the period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 in relation to the sales of goods under the standard income statement or income statement even if the sales of goods constitutes 00.

YB industry is due to a rapid increase in sales from the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009, and the first and second taxable periods of value-added tax in 2010 reported the purchase of waste Dongs equivalent to KRW 000 during the second taxable periods of value-added tax, but it became clear that the purchase tax invoice was issued without real transactions. During the investigation process, EE, which was in charge of BB industry, stated that BB industry was transported from its place of business to its place of business, without any separate open-air storage, and that it was traded by means of credit transfer from its place of business to its place of business. The YY director determined B industry as data on the basis of the above investigation results, and accused EE as suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

Luxembourg established on August 23, 2002 for the purpose of selling cosmetics, but was actually in a state of suspension due to actual records, the purpose of the corporation was changed to the non-ferrous metal wholesale retail business on March 23, 2010. Around that time, the place of business and the representative was also changed. After the change, the representative KimF did not have any career related to the non-ferrous metal, and was in the state of having no financial ability to operate the closed-dong wholesale business that requires considerable business funds in view of income and credit status. Meanwhile, on June 30, 2010,CC did not have all tangible assets, such as cash and cash assets and inventory assets, land, buildings, machinery, vehicle transport equipment, etc. on the standard balance sheet as of June 30, 2010.

As the sales ofCC have increased rapidly in 2010, the Director of the Regional Tax Office established a tax investigation. As a result, the purchaser ofCC confirmed that most of the sales tax invoices were reported only without the purchase amount, or that it was an enterprise that did not actually engage in the business, and that it appeared a type of transaction that does not match with the general transaction flow, such as transfer of most of the price on the day to the purchase account at the purchase place. Based on these facts, the Director of the Regional Tax Office confirmed the second purchase sales ofCC in 2010 as a processing transaction and filed a complaint againstCC.

QQ세무서장도 CC의 2010년 제1기 매입매출분을 전액 가공거래로 확정하여 CC를 고발하였다.

Article 2(1) of the former Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have supplied his own waste to the Plaintiff in the absence of any basic facilities for wholesale business, including the closure of the Dong,” and Article 2(1) of the former Act provides that “The Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have supplied his waste to the Plaintiff.” In light of various circumstances, including the current status of the Plaintiff’s operation and the purchaser, the financial transaction details, and other facts revealed as a result of the tax investigation, it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to regard the instant tax invoice received from the Plaintiff as a false tax invoice.”

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a medical negligence on the ship

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice either knew the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the said name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277,

In this case, in view of the details of the issuance and issuance of a tax invoice, the scale and market price of the goods or services supplied, the specific route in which the goods or services concerned were supplied, and the trade practices in the relevant industry, etc., where there were circumstances under which the beneficiary could have a doubt as to whether the nominal supplier is not the data, the beneficiary was negligent in failing to actually confirm the location of the business place of the nominal supplier, the business facilities, or the distribution route of the goods or services supplied, and on the sole basis of verifying the supplier’s business registration certificate, etc., it is difficult to deem that the beneficiary was negligent

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statements and videos Nos. 3, 6, and 10 evidence, the Plaintiff’s commencement of the transaction after confirming the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, etc., received a measurement certificate and tax invoice at the time of the purchase transaction, and remitted the transaction price to the account in the name of each purchaser. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the instant tax invoice was closed from the purchaser, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged earlier, evidence, and the purport of the entire pleading, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent in not investigating the facts, although the other party to the transaction was aware that it was not the actual purchaser of this case, or the other party to the transaction was in doubt of whether it was the actual purchaser of this case. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

(1) Since the twoO opened the AA industry from February 27, 2007 and traded closed-dong, etc., it seems that the twoO had been well aware of the supply structure, distribution channel, transaction type and data, and the risk thereof, through the experience of stockpiling up about two years prior to the transaction with the purchaser of this case.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff commenced the transaction after confirming the permanent domicile of the BB industry in Daegu, but the place of business under the BB industry’s business registration certificate is multi-household and has no separate permanent domicile, and it seems that it was not confirmed whether the said permanent domicile was a permanent domicile used by BB industry or whether the said permanent domicile was a permanent site in the above business registration certificate.

Around March 2010, the plaintiff, the representative director ofCC, and the last II in charge of the business, proposed the defect in closed-time operation transactions on the part of JJz International Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "JJ") whose representative director is the plaintiff, and around that time,CC did not have a business registration for closed-time wholesale, and it did not have a night-time place. Accordingly, at the JJ of Co., Ltd., the plaintiff leased part of the above company's night-type OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO toCC. After completing the business registration for non-ferrous metal wholesale and completing the construction of a new field-type shop-type OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the plaintiff started transactions with the JJ and the plaintiff from around July 2010.

According to the above argument, the plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the fact thatCC was an enterprise with no experience in closed-dong transactions prior to commencing the transaction with the plaintiff, and in light of the fact thatCC commenced the closed-dong wholesale business and generated enormous sales in a short period and closed the business, it is reasonable to deem that it did not take measures such as confirming the distribution channel, etc. of the closed-dong agreement, even though there were sufficient circumstances to suspect that the plaintiff, who is engaged in the high-tech steel waste resources industry with high possibility of disguised and processed transactions, was not a actual supplier.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful on the ground that the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from the instant purchaser constituted a false tax invoice.

3. Conclusion

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