부가가치세부과처분취소
1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 34,468,460 on April 2, 2014 against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2014, is subject to the imposition of KRW 34,468,460 on the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From June 1, 1992, the Plaintiff runs the scrap metal wholesale business in the name of “C” from Hanam-si B.
B. On February 24, 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 173,548,500 from D’s representative E, and returned and paid the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 by deducting the said input tax at the time of the return of the value-added tax for the said taxable period. On February 15, 2011, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 100,016,000 from F’s representative G, and reported and paid the value-added tax for the said taxable period by deducting the said input tax amount from the said input tax return for the said taxable period.
(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant purchasing places” and each of the said tax invoices is deemed to be “each of the instant tax invoices”).
On April 2, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data that the Plaintiff received each of the instant tax invoices from the head of Ansan District Tax Office and the director of the Central District Tax Office without real transactions, and conducted a tax investigation against the Plaintiff, and denied the tax deduction of each of the instant tax invoices on the grounds that each of the instant tax invoices was false, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 34,468,460 (including additional taxes), and KRW 18,754,380 (including additional taxes) for the year 2011.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 13, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that each of the instant tax invoices was actually supplied by each of the instant buyers, such as the instant tax invoices, and thus, each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice.