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

A. From October 13, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) was engaged in wholesale and manufacturing business of scrap metal, non-ferrous iron, etc. in the name of “DD resources” from 000, the Plaintiff was issued two copies of tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoices”) equivalent to the total value of supply from the GG scrap metal industry, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G scrap metal industry”) during the first VAT taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, and filed a return on value-added tax including it in the input tax amount.

B. The Defendant: (a) under the instant tax invoice, the actual supplier of the goods (in scrap metal) was not a supplier of the goods (hereinafter referred to as “H metal”); (b) deducted the input tax amount on the ground that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice based on the fact-finding; and (c) on December 1, 201, against the Plaintiff, KRW 00 of the value-added tax base for the second time in 2009 and KRW 000 of the value-added tax base for the first time in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. On February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal for a trial on February 10, 2012, and the above claims.

May 31 of the same year was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 12-1 to 3, Eul evidence 13, Eul evidence 5-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

GG high-speed steel industry is a bona fide trading party inasmuch as the Plaintiff has completed necessary confirmation and evidence expenses in normal transactions, such as confirming the copy of its business registration certificate and copy of passbook, and confirming that it is a normal business operator on the website of the National Tax Service, even if the GG high-speed steel industry is material. Accordingly, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Details of the survey on the data of the director of the tax office on the GG high non-ferrous iron industry

(A) On August 1, 2009, the place of business of the GG high-speed steel industry was located, and around August 1, 2009, 'Seoul Jongno-gu OO00 00 OO0, and around February 2, 2010, the place of business was changed to 'Seoul Songpa-gu O00000 OO-dong', and the public officials belonging to the Songri-si was found to have the results of visiting and investigating the said final place of business, and there were no documents related to the work, and the name of the H metal employee (II) was working at the time, and the name of the H metal representative (OJ).

(B) The results of the examination of the representative director of the GG high-speed steel industry and the strong II stated that “after the last JJ introduced tinK and entrusted the representative director of the GG high-speed steel industry with the introduction of tinK, but only only the name was lent, and there was no act as a representative of the corporation, and there was no actual payment settlement situation, etc., of the corporation.

(C) The actual representative of HH metal was confirmed to be KimL, and the staff parts and II of the above KimL and H metal were actually engaged in the business, such as the establishment, transaction, transportation, etc. of the GG high non-ferrous steel industry from July 2009 to October 2010.

(D) The total amount of KRW 000 for the second period purchase in 2009 for the GG scrap metal industry was confirmed as the processing purchase amount, and the total amount of KRW 000 for the first period purchase in 2010 was confirmed as the processing sales amount, and the total amount of KRW 000 for the same period sales was confirmed as the processing sales.

(E) Based on the above facts, the director of the tax office confirmed that the GG high-speed steel industry had issued and received a false tax invoice without real transactions, and accused the investigation agency of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, such as the GG high-speed steel industry and its representative.

(2) Trade, etc. between the Plaintiff and the GG scrap metal industry

(A) The Plaintiff entered into a transaction with the GG high-speed steel industry through the KimL, which was known by the branch of the Plaintiff, received a copy of the business registration certificate for the GG high-speed steel industry, supplied a scrap metal, and received a tax invoice.

(B) The above KimL was the actual representative of HH metal, and the Plaintiff did not verify at all the identity of the KimL in the above transaction process, and did not actually verify the location of the place of business, business facilities, etc. of the GG scrap iron industry.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the person who was supplied with other tax invoices was unaware of the nominal owner of the tax invoice, and that the person who was supplied with the above input tax amount was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal owner of the tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In light of the circumstances that the other party did not know of the actual owner's place of business or business facilities and that the other party did not know of the actual owner's place of business or business, and that there was no other evidence that the other party did not know of the actual owner's place of business or business, and that there was no other evidence that the other party did not know of the actual owner's place of business or business, and that there was no other evidence that the other party did not know of the actual owner's name in light of the legal principles as alleged above.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.