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

A. During the period from 2009 to 2011, the Plaintiff received 30 copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 2,345,665,000 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from the companies listed in the following table (hereinafter “the instant purchasing companies”) (hereinafter “instant transaction”), and filed a report by including them in deductible expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return for each business year.

The supply price in the taxable period of the ticket purchase place contained in the main sentence of February 35, 2009, 35,58,000 212,867,000 5 200 177,309,000 177,309,182,676,000 lusium 182,93,000 9 February 2, 2011, 2011 605,167,000 605,000 605,167,000 605,167,000 605,167,0005,0005 2323,004,505, 304,005, 16306,6305, 2016, 2046, 2016, 2005

B. A person who had investigated the instant purchase headquarters filed a complaint on the data of the instant purchase headquarters and notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data on suspicion that the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice, and the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff from January 21, 2013 to March 20, 2013, and issued a correction notice imposing value-added tax amounting to KRW 416,67,000 on the Plaintiff on May 2, 2013, after having confirmed the instant transaction as a disguised transaction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not raise an objection until the lapse of the period of objection.

C. Since then, on July 1, 2014, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 46,913,310 in total, KRW 42,65,980 in corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 3,546,180 in corporate tax for the business year 2010, and KRW 42,65,980 in corporate tax for the business year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service on July 9, 2014, but the National Tax Service dismissed the request on August 25, 2014.

E. Meanwhile, according to the Defendant’s accusation, an investigation was conducted as to whether there was a disguised transaction between the Plaintiff and the instant purchasing agencies. However, the prosecutor of the Ulsan District Prosecutors’ Office, on August 30, 2013, issued a non-prosecution decision on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while knowing that the instant purchasing agencies were data, agreed to receive a tax invoice stating false facts, and there is no clear evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received a tax invoice.”

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was actually supplied with goods, such as scrap metal, in the form of direct payment (referring to the method of the Plaintiff’s payment of the price to the instant purchasing entity if the instant purchasing entity immediately supplies the goods to the steel company) or self-payment (referring to the method of the Plaintiff’s payment to the instant purchasing entity, and the Plaintiff’s supply of goods to the steel company) from the instant purchasing entity, and then traded normally with the instant purchasing entity, such as the payment of the price, etc., and the payment of the price accordingly. Accordingly, each of the instant tax invoices received in relation to the said transaction does not constitute “unlawful tax invoices.”

Even if the purchaser of this case is a disguised business operator, the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact of the false name and was not negligent. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form "Related Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be as stated.

C. Facts of recognition

1) From July 1, 2001, the Plaintiff collected and processed steel scoops, the main raw materials of the steel industry, in Ulsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and supplied them to Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”).

2) Examining the details of the Plaintiff’s transaction with the instant purchasing agency, the Nonparty Company was fully supplied with the said trading volume, and the Plaintiff confirmed that the said trading volume was fully supplied by the Nonparty Company, and then remitted the following trading amount to the instant purchasing agency:

The trading volume (kg) trade volume (including value-added tax, source) of the traded goods contained in the main text shall be 527,160,160 234,153,766 - April 9, 2011 through October 83, 2011; 2,142,970 - 1,300,523,523 - from September 21, 201 to December 30, 2011; 1,090,65,684,684, 15, 174, 205, 15, 205, 175, 204, 175, 205, 205, 15, 205, 15, 204, 205, 15, 201, 15, 201, 15, 2014.

3) Upon the determination and accusation by the instant purchaser on the data, the Defendant issued a notice of correction of value-added tax on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices received from the instant purchaser was a disguised purchase tax invoice by the actual purchaser of scrap metal. In the process, the tax officials visited the instant purchaser on the spot and investigated the details as follows.

- The number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 2 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 2 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 1 and the total number of non-party 1 and the number of non-party 2 were 0 and the total number of 30.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that “in cases where a tax invoice is entered differently from the fact, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount.” In such a case, the meaning different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, or transaction subject to taxation belongs, and where there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the relevant tax law shall apply. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice prepared differently from the actual supplier of scrap metal to the non-party company.

① As a result of a tax official’s on-site investigation, the purchaser of this case did not meet the economic, physical, or capabilities to pay scrap metal. As such, the company that supplied scrap metal to the non-party company seems not to be the purchaser of this case.

② Since the prosecutor’s non-prosecution decision on the Plaintiff’s non-prosecution of the charges was due to the fact that there was no clear evidence as to the collusion in collusion, it does not deny the Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued by the instant purchaser solely on the basis of the aforementioned non-prosecution disposition.

③ Although the Defendant confirmed the instant disposition as a disguised transaction and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of value-added tax of KRW 416,677,00 on May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the effect that the Plaintiff did not object to the correction of value-added tax (the Plaintiff merely did not object to the correction of value-added tax, with the lapse of the time period, and did not recognize the existence of the said correction of value-added tax itself. However, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff immediately appealed on the instant disposition, which is much less than the value-added tax notified as the correction of value-added tax, without any objection despite having raised an objection to the said correction of value-added tax).

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice shall not be allowed to deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

With respect to whether the Plaintiff, without any negligence, was unaware of the name of each of the tax invoices of this case, and whether there was a collusion between the Plaintiff and the purchaser of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the existence by only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and the Plaintiff’s statements, which are merely organizing the Plaintiff’s statements, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff had been operating a wholesale and retail business since 2001, appears to have been aware of the actual condition of transactions in the domestic scrap metal industry. ② In particular, since all the purchasing parties of this case are both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, they should have been more careful in making transactions with the purchaser of this case. However, without undergoing the process of preparing a contract or examining the contents of the contract, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the transaction after receiving only the Plaintiff’s resident registration certificate and the copy of the passbook, etc., and ③ the Plaintiff, who had been engaged in the business of scrap metal for a long time, had been aware of the same type of business as that of the purchaser of this case, was engaged in the same type of business, to which extent the actual size of the transaction was measured, and to which extent the Plaintiff could have been supplied by taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the supply price of this case, even if it did not have been supplied by means of a general method of delivery.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment Form 5]

Judges Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)