2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

On July 1, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision that the imposition of the value-added tax No. 1 of the year 2013 against the Plaintiffs is revoked.

A. From March 16, 2005, the Plaintiffs are joint entrepreneurs operating a high- and non-ferrous iron wholesale business with the trade name from 000-0 to BB in Gwangju-si.

B. On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiffs received two copies of the tax invoice that constitutes an OOO (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from CCC, and accordingly deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and reported and paid the value-added tax for the first period of 2013.

C. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant determined that CCC was data as a result of the tax investigation with respect to CCC, etc., and deemed the instant tax invoice as data different from the facts, and thus, deducted the input tax amount pursuant to the instant tax invoice, and subsequently notified the Plaintiffs of the correction and notification of the 1st VAT OO for the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs are dissatisfied with this and the Defendant’s objection was dismissed, and the Defendant’s objection was dismissed.

2. 27. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on July 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

① Since the Plaintiffs were actually supplied with the closure of the supply value of the instant tax invoice by CCC, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the instant tax invoice is different from the fact.

② Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiffs had transacted with the CCC by introducing DD trusted in the same industry for a long time; the Plaintiffs confirmed the goods from the CCC logistics warehouse to interest in the price and traded them; the amount of normal purchase was remitted to the EE account, a representative of CCC; and the details of the instant tax invoice are suspected to be different from the facts.

In light of all the facts, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs were negligent in not knowing that the CCC was not a real supplier and not knowing the fact.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, 15, and Eul evidence 2 through 5 shall include the purport of the whole pleadings.

The following facts shall be recognized:

① On April 1, 2012, CCC is an entity that started business for the purpose of high- and non-legal wholesale and retail business from OE 600 OE-dong 600, EE registered as its representative is a person who had no record of engaging in a type of business related to high- iron and non-legal business prior to the commencement of CCC business.

② As the location of the CCC’s place of business, the CCC was in operation, Co., Ltd., 600, and CCC, Co., Ltd., 100,000,000 won per month, leased part of the warehouse (five appraised values) of the CG resource office in the office of GG resource, and kept one book, a small frequency, one computer, and one telephone machine, but did not actually use it (CCC’s telephone number at the time of opening the business, was confirmed as FF’s telephone number in South Korea).

③ At the time of the declaration of value-added tax from the first to the first half of 2012, CCC entered the supply value of the total tax invoice by customer from the first half of 2012 as the first half of 2012, the second half of 2012, and the first half of 2013, and reported the value-added tax accordingly. The only purchase price for the first and second half of 2012 is HH, and the first half of 2013 is the first purchase price by stating only the purchase price without stating the transaction details.

④ On the other hand, HH reported the sales of the supply price of CCC at the time of filing the first VAT return in 2012, but HH did not fully report the sales of CCC at the time of filing the second VAT return in 2012.

⑤ In relation to the instant case, EE, the representative of CCC, was suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but EE merely appears to be the nominal name holder, and the actual operator of CCC was subject to a non-prosecution disposition. The JJI, the representative of HH, was also suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but was indicted on the ground that it was already dead on January 27, 2012, the transfer of the above violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

④ On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff A transferred the total amount of OO to an account in the name of EE (EE) under the name of the purchase price.

D. Determination

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

(A) Naz u300-related legal principles

Article 39(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact. Here, meaning that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, refers to cases where the ownership of income, earnings, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, act or transaction belongs, and the other person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs is liable to pay taxes in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the necessary entries in a tax invoice are inconsistent with those in a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, notwithstanding the formal entries in a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the

In addition, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements is a taxable person, but if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements unless the pertinent facts are proven that the pertinent facts were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6568, Sept. 24, 2009).

B) In the instant case:

The facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed: ① CCC’s human resources and physical facilities are deemed to have no ability to operate high- and non-ferrous retail business; ② there is no evidence to know that CCC purchased closed-dong from the purchaser; ② purchase and sales of CCC was confirmed as a processing transaction as a result of the Defendant’s tax investigation; ③ it is difficult to deem that there was a de facto closed-dong transaction with CCC without the purchase details; ④ the Plaintiffs asserted that the tax invoice of this case was genuine and submitted a measurement certificate prepared by the OCC, but the above measurement certificate was insufficient as evidence to acknowledge closed-dong transaction between the Plaintiffs and CCC, and ⑤ the Plaintiffs transferred OO won to the account in the name of EEE on the day of the instant transaction, but this did not appear to have been different from the Plaintiff, taking into account the following facts: (i) purchase and sales of CCC was determined as a result of the Defendant’s tax investigation; and (ii) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been paid a discounted cash transaction as well as the purchase price of the instant tax invoice.

Since it is difficult for the company that actually supplied the Dong to be recognized as the CCC, the instant tax invoice issued by the supplier of the CCC shall be deemed to be a tax invoice written differently from the fact.

2) Whether the plaintiffs are bona fide and without fault or not

(A) Naz u300-related legal principles

An entrepreneur who actually supplies a tax invoice and another supplier’s tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the person who actually received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the tax invoice was nominal, and the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence due to his/her failure to do so, and the fact that the person who received the tax was unaware of the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence due to his/her failure to do so ought to be proved by the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu2134, Oct. 24, 1989; 200

B) In the instant case:

The facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances revealed based on the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiffs appears to have expertise in closed-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-

In light of the fact that the goods were confirmed in the logistics warehouse of the CCC at the time, it seems that it would have been possible to know the human resources and physical facilities of CCC which are not suitable for the closure of the business at the time, and the plaintiffs would have paid the amount discounted by 1 million won from the total supply price including value added tax on the tax invoice of this case without any particular reason as the supply price. In addition, it is reasonable to deem that there were sufficient circumstances to suspect that the transaction partner was a disguised business operator at the time of the transaction of this case. Thus, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to find that the plaintiffs was negligent in not knowing that the name of the supplier of the tax invoice of this case was different from that of the actual supplier, and

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice is lawful, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.