2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The 1/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant respectively by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that mainly engages in wholesale and retail business (e-commerce business), and ① issued six copies of the purchase tax invoice from BB in 2008, and received six copies of the purchase tax invoice from CCC in the first and second VAT taxable periods in 2010, and ② six copies of the total supply price to DD in the first and second VAT taxable periods in 2008, and six copies of the total supply price to DD in the supply price to DD in the first and second VAT taxable periods in 2008, and six copies of the supply price to DD and EE in the first and second VAT taxable periods in 2010, and then reported and paid the value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice in this case", and hereinafter referred to as "the transaction in this case").

B. From May 17, 2011 to August 24, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff and related enterprises; and (b) deemed that all of the instant tax invoices received by the Plaintiff as a processing tax invoice and notified the Defendant thereof.

C. According to the above notification, the Defendant: (a) reduced both the input tax amount and the output tax amount under the tax invoice in this case; (b) added the additional tax to the tax invoice in good faith; and (c) revised and notified the Plaintiff on September 1, 201, the value-added tax (including the additional tax) as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”); (c) while the additional tax on non-performance of the tax invoice in each taxable period constitutes the first period in 2008, the second period in 2008, the first period in 200, and the second period in 2010, and the second period in 2010, after the settlement with the corrected tax amount or the refundable tax amount, the amount stated in the above purport of the claim is finally imposed; and (d) only the remaining OO members, which constituted the additional tax on the corresponding period after deducting the OO origin from the OOO amount in the first period in 2008.

D. On December 13, 201, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, requested the Tax Tribunal for a trial on December 13, 201, but was dismissed on July 20, 2012.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, and entry of Gap evidence 2 through 5, and Eul evidence 1 (including family evidence, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Principal value-added tax portion

The Plaintiff is a bona fide trading partner who was unaware of the fact that the instant transaction was processed.

Even if the transaction partner is judged as a nominal nominal business operator, if it can be seen as a bona fide business operator, unfavorable disposition such as correction shall not be made. It is established Supreme Court precedents and the contents of the general rules of value-added tax, and it is not known that there is no false transaction. However, it is not known that there is no real transaction like in this case, or it is not known that there is no different contents from the substance of transaction. Thus, the above legal principle should also be applied to this case.

Therefore, it is illegal to revise and notify the principal tax of value-added tax by not deducting the input tax amount from the plaintiff who is a bona fide trading partner.

(2) Additional tax portion

The Plaintiff did not know at all the processing trader, and there was no circumstance to suspect them. As such, the Plaintiff’s disposition of imposing additional tax in the instant disposition ought to be deemed to fall under a case where there was a justifiable ground for not being able to mislead the Plaintiff into neglecting his duty with respect to the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the disposition of imposing additional tax should be

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized, in full view of all or part of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 18, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and witness FF, and testimony of GG, unless there is dispute between the parties, or taking into account the overall purport of the arguments:

(1) HH is the actual operator of 'DD', 'EE', 'EE', and 'D3 company' when 'D3 company', and 'D3 company' in combination with the above companies when 'DD', 'DDD', 'EE', 'D3 company', and 'D3 company' in which the government invested in order to develop markets for products manufactured by small and medium enterprises and promote their management since 2005, and 'D3 company' has concluded a consignment contract with 'CCC' (hereinafter 'CCC') for the purchase and supply of products.

(2) HH made an investment in the home shopping business and thereby raising funds to pay for the debt incurred, and it made the above processing by D3 companies, which operate, processed circular transactions in which D3 companies are entrusted with the purchase business and sales business by the small and medium enterprise distribution center, and the basic distribution flow of products is D3 companies ? BB (hereinafter “B”) or CR3 companies, such as BB, etc. which are aware of such circumstances, and used and expanded after the payment for their own debt, etc., the HH made the above processing transactions by deceiving the employees of the companies such as BB, etc.

(3) At the time of February 2008, JJ and HH proposed that, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff would arrange the transaction between BB and DD to purchase goods from BB and sell them to DD for the same reason in 2010, each contract was concluded between BB and the Plaintiff purchased goods from DD and sold them to DD for the same reason, and accordingly, the tax invoice was received between DD and EE. Meanwhile, while the instant transaction continued, the sales company approved the payment from the sales company in a normal manner.

(4) In a contract with BB or CCC, the Plaintiff’s buyer, only allows the said company to supply goods to the place determined by the Plaintiff, and there is no provision regarding the Plaintiff’s duty of inspection, etc., while in a contract with DD or EE, the Plaintiff’s seller, the buyer, confirms that the said company did not have any defect in goods.

(5) The goods to be supplied with the instant transaction were of diverse kinds and small quantities of daily products, such as cleaning equipment and processed food, and the Plaintiff’s fee rate (mast rate) arising from the instant transaction was 1.5% in 208, 3.1% in 2010, and average 2.6% in total (the commission rate that the Plaintiff acquired in the field of B2B (Busi business to be used in the instant transaction, and electronic commerce in which business companies sell various services or goods) such as the instant transaction, was 6.3% in 208 and 4.8% in 2010) and the sales share arising from the instant transaction was 0.1% in 0.45% in comparison with the total sales.

D. Determination

(1) The main value-added tax (OOOO's portion of value-added tax for the first term of 2008)

The legal principle cited by the Plaintiff was presented by the actual transaction itself, but the actual supplier and the supplier are different from the supplier under the tax invoice, which is premised on the case where the supplier is a bona fide trading party with respect to the nominal transaction of the tax invoice, and it is not applied or analogically applied to the case where there is no real transaction itself as in this case, and the Plaintiff’

(2) Additional tax portion

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, where a taxpayer violates a tax return and tax liability under the tax law without justifiable grounds, administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the tax law, and the taxpayer's intention and negligence shall not be taken into account, but where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her duty, and where there is a circumstance that makes it difficult for him/her to present a justifiable reason or to expect the party to fulfill his/her duty, it may not be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are revealed through health stand and the above facts, i.e., the transaction in this case is basically made as part of HH's fraud, and ii) sales places such as BD are not unilaterally selected and notified to the Plaintiff, and it seems that the Plaintiff was caused to the transaction in this case through the normal proposal of BB and CCC. iii) Furthermore, BB which the Plaintiff negotiated with the Plaintiff was an affiliate company, CCC was a public corporation, and (4) the rate of the transaction in this case was lower than the rate of the transaction in this case 1.5%, 3.1%, and (5) it is reasonable to view that the transaction in this case did not include the Plaintiff's duty to pay the price for the return of this case, and that it was difficult to expect the Plaintiff's transaction in this case, and that it was difficult to expect the Plaintiff to pay the price for the transaction in this case, and that it did not include the Plaintiff's duty to pay the price for the transaction in this case.

Ultimately, the penalty tax part among the disposition in this case is illegal, and should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.