A. On June 13, 2012, the part of the disposition of imposition of the second VAT on the Plaintiff on June 13, 2012 in excess of owon in the imposition of the second VAT, and the part of the disposition of imposition of the owon in the business year 2008, which exceeded owon, shall be revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear 5% of the total litigation costs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

1. Purport of claim

On June 13, 2012, the imposition of the first value-added tax for the Plaintiff on June 13, 2012, the second value-added tax for the year 2007, the first value-added tax for the year 2008, the first value-added tax for the year 2008, the imposition of the Goo on the second value-added tax for the year 2008, the imposition of the Goo on the second value-added tax for the year 2008, and the imposition of the Goo on the corporate tax for the business year 2008, the part exceeding

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

This decision is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the following contents. Therefore, this decision is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Part II, Chapter 14, "B" is changed to "B."

(2) The third and third sides 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be applied to "A. 3 and 6".

3. Part 4, Paragraph 13, "the grounds for the disposition of this case" shall be "the grounds for the disposition of this case".

(4) Grades 4, 19 through 5, and 7, shall be improved as follows:

B. As to the second disposition of this case

(1) Legal principles

Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods as a taxable object of value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the fact that value-added tax has characteristics as a multi-stage transaction tax, "delivery or transfer" under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of causing the transfer of authority to use and consume goods, regardless of the profits actually acquired, but whether a specific transaction is a nominal transaction in any series of transactions shall be determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose and manner of the transaction, the form and manner of the transaction, the subject to whom profits accrue, the process of movement of real goods, the payment of consideration, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8263, Nov. 15, 2012).

(2) Facts of recognition

① In the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff’s representative director bB requested the Plaintiff to purchase scrap metal arising from dddd in the face of e and inside in 2006 at the time of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation. e and dd in the agreement that e would have entered into a trade with the Plaintiff and dd in the market price, but in fact, cC invested shares in dd in the Hong Kongfff operated by cc, but the Plaintiff was able to purchase scrap metal at dd, etc. at the low price by adjusting the market price at the level of compensating losses. In addition, the Plaintiff visited gggg-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-h-h-g-h-g-h-g-h-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-g-k-g-g-g-k-k-k-g-g-k-k-k-k-k-g-g-k-k-g-k-k-k-k-k-k-g.

② In the course of the tax investigation, Gg’s Managing Director 3: (a) the scrap metal arising from DD Port 2 factory from March 2007 to April 2008 was directly released from ggg; (b) from March 2007 to May 2007, the purchase tax invoice was issued from the Plaintiff; and (c) the purchase tax invoice was issued from hh from May 2007 to April 2008 from d D Port 2 factory in the Plaintiff’s custody from May 2007 to hh from April 2008. The other reasons are that the volume of the slips confirmed from hhhh were to be lost to hhhh and to be arbitrarily prepared on the basis of the current status that it was impossible for the Plaintiff and hh from d Port 2 factory to d Port 2 factory in the Plaintiff’s custody.

③ The workplace of Hh is located in Gyeonggi-dojjj, which was closed around October 2008.

④ From May 2008 to April 201, 201, kk received the purchase tax invoice that it should receive from d and l and it is currently underway in relation to the revocation lawsuit (the first instance court is the Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap6722 case) related to the disposition of non-deduction in the purchase tax amount of kk (the plaintiff's plaque that the k has lost as Seoul Administrative Court 2015Nu30960 case and the Supreme Court 2015Du51682 currently).

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 5, Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 20-2, each entry of Evidence No. 5, Eul No. 20-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Determination

Although the Plaintiff filed a complaint with an investigation agency on suspicion of tax evasion, etc. due to the issuance of the aforementioned disguised tax invoices, the investigation agency made a decision that the Plaintiff was suspected of having received false tax invoices (Evidence of Evidence) by compiling the statements of the relevant persons, and the head of the Luxembourg Tax Office recognized the fact that he/she notified that there was no suspicion of receiving false tax invoices after the tax investigation on

However, in full view of the above evidence, the facts of recognition, and the following (1) through (4), it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff issued and issued the false sales tax invoice in the hhh in the future by inserting hhh, by inserting hh, even though the Plaintiff sold from dddd and lg during the period from June 2007 to April 2008.

① From March 2007 to April 2008, ggg was in charge of the shipment, transportation, etc. of scrap metal generated from dPos Port 2 factories and lamp. From June 2007, 2007, hhh was involved between the Plaintiff and ggg as a customer, hh was not at all involved in the shipment, such as the said mooring and transportation. As to the intervention of hhh, hhh was stated to the effect that hhh was entirely unaware of the grounds therefor.

② The Plaintiff’s representative director, bB also carried out gg g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g h h h g g g g g g g g g g g g h h g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g

③ Hh’s place of business is located in the dD Pohang Port 2 factory, lamp-si, which is a collection office of scrap metal, in the hhh-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-

④ Hh closed down the period from June 2007 to April 2008, when the false tax invoice of this case was at issue.”

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim for cancellation against the first disposition of this case shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed on the ground of the reasons, and the first judgment is unfair on the ground that the conclusion is partially different, so it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the first instance judgment.