2.8. The imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for a period of one year, 2009 and value-added tax of 000 won for a period of two years, 2009 shall be revoked.

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

A. The Plaintiff, at the OOO 000 OB, engaged in the non-ferrous metal manufacturing business in BB, “BB special metal” at the OOO 000 OG, and at the time of the second quarter of the value added tax in 2008, purchased tax invoices of KRW 000 in total of the supply values from the EE company operated by EDR during the first quarter of the value added tax in 2009, and received purchase tax invoices of KRW 000 in total of the supply values from the GG base metal operated by NAF in the taxable period of the value added tax in 2009, and filed a value added tax return for the pertinent taxable period (hereinafter “CC metal, etc.”) with the Defendant after deducting the input tax amount under each of the above tax invoices, and filed a value-added tax return for the pertinent taxable period (hereinafter “CC metal,” E, and “G base metal, etc.” in total of the CC metal, E and GG base metal”).

B. However, the Defendant: (a) constitutes a disguised business operator who issued a false tax invoice without a real transaction; and (b) denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction on the grounds that each of the above tax invoices received fromCC metal, etc. was false; (c) denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction on November 5, 2010; (d) KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second term of 2008; and (e) revised and notified the Plaintiff on February 8, 201, value-added tax for the first term of 2009 and KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second term of 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 23, 201.

The above claim was dismissed.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 32, and 33, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff was supplied with CC metal, etc. with the actual recycling doctrine as stated in each of the instant tax invoices (hereinafter “instant goods”). Therefore, each of the said tax invoices does not constitute a tax invoice different from the facts, and even if not, the Plaintiff did not know that CC metal, etc. was a disguised business operator at the time of the purchase of the instant goods, and was not negligent, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

(A) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In cases where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the entry of a tax invoice is different from the fact, and the necessary entry of a tax invoice is different from the fact in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment, and the cases where the necessary entry of a tax invoice does not coincide with the person to whom the goods or service was actually supplied or the person to whom the goods or service was supplied,

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the amount transferred to the business account ofCC metal, etc. is found to be a disguised entrepreneur established for the purpose of issuing a false tax invoice without a real transaction, such as verification of most of the tax invoices received in the course of the transaction as a result of the tax authorities' field investigation, and the tax invoices entered as a supplier in each of the tax invoices of this case, which are identified as follows: (i) CC metal, etc.; (ii) CC metal, etc. do not have all the basic facilities necessary for processing of recycling glass, including field and field, and transport vehicles; and (iii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... ..... ...... ......... .... ............ .............

(2) As to the second argument of the Plaintiff

(A) Unless there is a special reason to believe that the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are not aware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier, the actual supplier and the supplier are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier not knowing the above nominal name, the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). However, in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a disguised business operator in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a qualified business operator, the other party is negligent in finding that the other party is a disguised business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 197).

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the following is recognized as being added to the overall purport of the arguments as to the health stand, evidence Nos. 3 through 35 (including household numbers), and evidence Nos. 6, and each financial transaction information submission order and fact inquiry with respect to the Seoyang post offices, and ① the Plaintiff purchased 20 years or more from the Plaintiff’s entire trade volume, and it is extremely low in the Plaintiff’s share of transaction withCC metal, etc., and the Plaintiff did not know that the name and business name entered in the tax invoice was identical to the entries in the above business account, and the Plaintiff purchased 10 years or more from the Plaintiff’s normal transaction price to the other 20 years, and then purchased 20 years or more from the Plaintiff’s normal transaction price to the other 10 years, and the Plaintiff purchased 20 years or more from the Plaintiff’s trade price to the other 20 years, and then purchased 10 years or more from the Plaintiff’s normal transaction price of the instant product, and then purchased 20 years or more from the other company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.