2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant revoked the rejection disposition against the Plaintiff on the application for the refund of value-added tax for the first period of November 19, 2012, and revoked the imposition disposition of KRW 000 of the penalty tax for excess of value-added tax for the first period of January 2, 2013, which was made on January 2, 2013 (the Plaintiff entered the date of the disposition of imposition of the penalty tax for excess of value-added tax for the first period of January 27, 2014 in the application for the modification of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case as of June 27, 2014, but it appears that the date of the disposition of imposition of the penalty tax for excess of value-added tax for the first period of January 9/2013, and it appears that the entry in the evidence No. 13

A. On April 13, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) was a corporation established for the purpose of export and import business of non-metallic metals; (b) received a tax invoice of KRW 000,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”); and (c) filed an application for the refund of value-added tax after deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount upon filing the return of value-added tax for the first period of January 2012 with the Defendant during the taxable period of value-added tax for the first year of 2012.

B. 1) The Defendant withheld the determination on the Plaintiff’s application for refund, and conducted an investigation related to the transaction order with the Plaintiff from August 6, 2012 to November 17, 2012, and determined that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice based on the facts arising from the nominal transaction to disguised the so-called wide coal trade, and notified the Plaintiff on November 19, 2012 of the results of the tax investigation as follows.

1. Object of investigation (tax item: The period subject to investigation of value-added tax: January 2012 to June 2012);

The application for refund shall be rejected and related tax shall be corrected in relation to the investigation of value-added tax attributed to the first year of 2012.

2. Details of decision (for example, gross notified tax amount: 00 won); and

2) Since the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to make a pre-assessment review on the notice of the results of the above tax investigation, the Plaintiff filed an application for early decision requesting the Defendant to make a decision immediately.

C. On January 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deducted the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the additional tax on excess of the value-added tax for the first period of January 2, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 20, 2013, but was dismissed on December 11, 2013.

[Facts without grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 7, 9, 10, 11

e) the entries in evidence Nos. 1 and 13, and the whole purport of the pleading;

2. Whether the revocation claim against the rejection disposition of value-added tax among the lawsuit in this case is legitimate

The existence of administrative disposition, which is the object of litigation, in case of administrative litigation, is considered a lawful requirement of litigation. If there is no disposition for the plaintiff to seek revocation, the lawsuit shall be dismissed (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu6707, Aug. 26, 1997). There is no evidence to prove that the defendant made a disposition against the plaintiff to refuse the application for the refund of value-added tax for the first term portion of November 19, 2012 against the plaintiff on November 19, 2012 (see the above facts, according to the above facts, and it is found that the tax invoice of this case was different from the facts as a result of an investigation into trade order related to the plaintiff, so it is merely a notification of the result of tax investigation that the plaintiff would refuse the application for the refund of the plaintiff and notify the correction of value-added tax. However, the result of such tax investigation alone does not affect the existence or scope of the plaintiff's right. Therefore, it cannot be deemed an independent administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation).

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation against the rejection disposition of value-added tax among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff first borrowed part of the BB metal’s workplace in Seoul to reduce transportation costs to reduce the cost of the workplace, and then exchanged them in Korean won, and then received a tax invoice from BB metal account, and the Plaintiff transferred the purchase price to BB metal’s account, and the Plaintiff confirmed the identity of BB metal before commencing the transaction with BB metal, and the copy of the KK’s resident registration certificate, the certified copy of the corporate register, the representative director of BB metal’s resident registration, and the book of the BB metal’s passbook. The Plaintiff used part of the BB metal’s shop in Seoul to obtain transportation expenses to the maximum extent possible. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased a mixed metal from BB metal to purchase it, the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the mixed metal from the supplier, and that it did not constitute the Plaintiff’s purchase without any other domestic financial resources, and that it did not constitute the Plaintiff’s own financial resources, as it did not constitute a mixture of the instant tax invoice, and that it did not constitute the Plaintiff’s purchase without any other domestic financial resources.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The main contents of the report prepared by the Defendant after conducting an investigation into trade order with the Plaintiff from August 6, 2012 to November 17, 2012 are as follows.

4. Details of inspection.

(a) Investigation of workplace;

(2) The Plaintiff established on April 17, 2012 and operated an export business of non-ferrous metals (mix metal containing steel-cadmium) and worked as a new corporation located in a small-sized officetel of eight square meters, including the representative director, as of the date of investigation.

In addition to the corporate location, the Plaintiff does not have any separate storages, other than the corporate location, and its assets are confirmed to have never been transferred except computers, office equipment, etc., and in particular, there are no fixed assets for business, such as vehicles for transport, and commuting equipment.

(b) Representative investigation;

. 대표이사 TTT은 원고 설립 전에 'XXXXX'(OO시 OO동 )라는 소주방을 운영하였고，2008년，2009년에 건설회사에서 일용근로자로 근무한 이력을 제외하고는 사업 및 근무이력이 확인되지 않으며，특히 비철금속 도매업 등의 동종업계 근무이력이 없는 것으로 확인됨.

Survey of Source of Sales

3. TPPL.

- The first sale of 1 January 2012 000 won: Normal transactions;

- The plaintiff exports the total quantity of mixed metal, located in China, to TPPL, and confirms that the export-related documents, such as export-related contracts, export declaration completion certificates, etc., and the details of foreign currency transfer have been exported normally, and it is confirmed that the plaintiff received prior payment from TPPAL and purchased the mixed metal.

(e) Survey by the purchaser;

(i) BB metal (Representative KK)

- Purchase 000 won for the first period of January 2012: Processing transactions;

- BB metal is located in OOOOO-O, and is engaged in non-ferrous metal wholesale business established on April 4, 2012.

- The part of the value-added tax on BB metal, which is the Plaintiff’s single purchasing entity, was conducted. The Z resources (representative SS and OOO-O) are confirmed to have continued to be in progress for the investigation in the first country of the investigation of the Central Regional Tax Office or the SSS did not actively cooperate in the investigation and delays the investigation on the grounds of personal circumstances (local business trip, etc.).

- The area of BB metal is at least 120 square meters, and there are warehouses and offices in container buildings, and it is confirmed that it has machinery, equipment, etc. such as mooring equipment.

(f) Survey of the form of sale and purchase transaction;

The Plaintiff’s item is a mixture of steel-cadmium-containing metals produced through compressed operations by extracting parts containing principal ingredients in waste and recyclable materials, etc. from waste and recyclable materials, etc., stating that color is in the form of Damond and in its original form, not specified.

As to the point of time when TT and KK came to know, TT stated that it had been aware of about three years prior to the time it personally works in high water related to it, and KK stated that it had been working in the field management department (the claim that it worked in the field management department from January 2010 to March 2012) at the time of service of DM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DM"). KK received mixed metal samples from SS before establishing BM and received it before establishing it, and SS was possible to secure a mixed metal with 10 tons or more each month, and it stated that TT had a market on the side of China, but it did not know that it was a mixed metal, but it did not know that it was a mixed metal, and it had shown that it was a legal entity in China after its incorporation in the business feasibility inspection.

(b) In the Central and Medium Regional Tax Office, the questions and answers collected from SS from SS are examined, and the person was in the state of being aware of mixed metals as he/she runs the business of copper products, etc., and if KK is a mixed metal, it is stated that it has made a mixed metal business by sending samples.

. When determining the unit price of goods, KK stated that it determined the unit price for sales and purchase on the basis of the international market price of Notes, but TTPP stated that the Plaintiff presented the unit price on the side of BB metal and that the unit price for the goods was determined because the export price was determined in TTPPL, which is a Chinese business partner.

. Examining the descriptions stated by SS in the Central Regional Tax Office, and Jins, sent to KK each time a mixed metal sample sample is collected and expressed that the unit price was determined in accordance with the determination of the ingredient in BB metal, and TT appears only once before the Plaintiff was established at the time of first sampling from KK before its establishment;

In light of the Plaintiff’s details of the Plaintiff’s report, the type of transaction indicated in the Plaintiff’s report is confirmed that the SS collected waste glass products and mixed metals containing steel-cadmium from the U.S. registered business operators without a purchase tax invoice and sold at a lower price than the purchase price of BB metal and D metal. BB metal sold (tax invoices) to the Plaintiff without any movement of goods and any separate succession to the entire mixed metals purchased from Z resources, and the Plaintiff ultimately exported to China, and the SS was terminated ex officio after filing a return on the value-added tax (report on August 3, 2012) on the said transaction (report on June 30, 2012).

(2) The Plaintiff’s product supply contract was concluded on April 19, 2012, and both the Plaintiff and the BB metal and the SS were concluded on April 18, 2012. The content and form of the contract concluded between the Plaintiff, the BB metal and the SS are the same as 100%.

In one year of 2012, the details of transactions between the Plaintiff and BB metal are analyzed as follows.

As shown in the above table, the plaintiff's entry into and departure from the same structure. However, if the volume of the goods is identical, the succession work is conducted through BB metal only at the time of shipment (export), and the issuance of tax invoices, etc. is deemed to be a situation (TT is a statement that confirmed the volume of the goods) without movement of the goods, and the accuracy of the input amount is entirely not reliable, the plaintiff cannot at all trust the purchase amount indicated in the relevant photograph, tax invoice, and transaction specification presented by the plaintiff as evidence for purchase of the goods, and the plaintiff's initial sales loss in 2012 is confirmed to be KRW 334,00,000.

B. The Plaintiff, BB metal, and Z resource are newly established in 2012 and all representatives do not have any income sources, and they are confirmed as non-property owners. Examining the details of payment made by these three companies, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff transfers the export price to B metal through Internet banking immediately after receiving the export payment from the Chinese customer, and the B metal also is confirmed as transferring the price to Z resource through Internet banking immediately after receiving the payment from the Plaintiff. In ordinary, the unit price determination in the high iron and non-ferrous wholesale business accounts for a considerable amount of importance to the management of the Company.

Despite the fact that all three companies do not determine the unit price at the time of the supply of goods and are being jointly carried out by three companies without changing the unit price. These three companies are issued and received a tax invoice on the date of the transfer of the price and use it as evidence for the purchase of goods. In general, it is difficult to recognize the transfer of the price to the purchasing company by means of a different method from the actual purchase of goods in detail.

In tracking the process of distributing the mixed metal of this case, the Z resources issued sales tax invoices without purchase data (free payment after the expiration of the return) and BB metal issued the sales tax invoices to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was finally identified as exporting to the Chinese business partner, who is the actual consumer of the Plaintiff.

In collusion, three enterprises are engaged in the business of China (actual demand) and in the business of China

It is judged that the three companies have newly established their respective companies to be engaged in a disguised transaction for the purpose of evading value-added tax, etc., and issued and received processing tax invoices in order to ensure that they were exported in the name of the plaintiff by collecting metals containing metal from the unregistered business operators without identity.

As in the above transaction status, the Plaintiff suffers a total of 33,00,000 won and the input tax amount of value-added tax related to zero tax due to the payment of 000 won for sales losses and 000 won for transaction partners. Nevertheless, the value-added tax amount equivalent to the value-added tax is premised on the existence of a non-registered business operator, etc. who actually receives the value-added tax amount. The value-added tax collected after the transaction is transferred to BB metal and the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from the immediately preceding stage business entity in order by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, the exporter, finally, is entitled to receive the input tax amount from the State. The portion equivalent to the value-added tax amount equivalent to the value-added tax that has not been paid by the Z resource is the ultimate source of the profits derived from the Z resource, and the B metal is determined to be merely a person who participated in the transaction process and received the fee for such profit.

2) The main contents of the report prepared by the Central Regional Tax Office after conducting a trade order investigation into SS with respect to SS from June 12, 2012 to November 28, 2012 are as follows:

2. Determination of value-added tax

1. Details of inspection;

SS (SS) has worked as a daily worker on the high water located in Pyeongtaek-si with bad credit standing for six months, and on the 19th 2012, 1, and 19, the GZ resource opening business (OO restaurant operation from February 14, 201, to December 6, 201, and on the 11th OO restaurant operation from June 12, 201 to December 31, 201).

- argument that the business has been secured by visiting the site across the country for the purpose of the solid business from three months prior to the commencement of the business;

SS enters into a supply contract with BB metal (main products) on April 18, 2012 (the unit price for delivery shall be determined by BB metal by reflecting the international market price).

- Transmitting text messages by setting a higher unit price for purchase to an unspecified large number of re-purchase units secured through operations.

- After confirming the transaction price by telephone from the customer who received letters, as well as securing waste, etc. on the premise of purchase of non-data and cash transactions;

3. Purchase of mixed metals;

Purchase details of mixed metal by customer (from March 31, 2012 to June 30, 2012),

- argument that BB metal purchased mixed metals at the price calculated by adding 1,400 won per km to the price determined according to the result of the main ingredients as a result of the examination.

Matters concerning the process of purchase and the place of purchase;

- SS is requested from KK on March 2012 to supply mix metal from KK known in the course of transactions with DD metal and requested the buyer to supply the mixed metal whenever it visits the buyer for the purchase of waste metal; and

Since then, at the request of two persons on their identity (one-one person) in the purchase of mixed metals from them, the person requested the analysis of ingredients about the main ingredients in BB metal (the mixed metal is made in a specific form (a multimond) and it is difficult to see that ZZ resources were purchased in the form of complete products, the unit price is determined in accordance with the main ingredients, and the unit price is used.) and that the mixed metal was purchased in accordance with the results, but it is difficult to understand that it was difficult to understand that the supplier started a transaction with the first contact without any special business activity, even though it is a good superior to the supplier, and that there was a real transaction, and that there was a real transaction.

Payment of goods price

- SS asserts that SS purchased a mixed metal on credit from Lyma to BB metal, and sold the mixed metal on credit within 1.2 days after the delivery, and that it received the sales price and visited Z resource offices and paid it in cash at the Z resource office. However, the argument that it traded credit without any special trust relationship with Lyma from the beginning of the transaction does not seem to be realistic.

5. Sales of mixed metal on BB metal, entering into a contract with BB metal on April 18, 2012;

-SS accepted the proposal and entered into an oral contract in order to cover the loss incurred in the transaction with DM, which was requested by KK at the time of the transaction with DM, during the transaction with DM, and agreed to provide BB metal on the basis of international market prices and to supply 100 tons of Z resources per month. To fulfill the terms of the contract, the supply price in the goods supply contract entered into thereafter agreed to ensure that BB metal is determined on the basis of international market prices and that the Z resources are supplied at a price higher than the supply price in the following table 1, and as a result, 26 copies of the sales tax invoice 200 won, which are issued from BB metal on the date of delivery, and issued 26 copies of the sales tax invoice 100 won in the supply price, which is 00 won in the aggregate of the supply price and 000 won in the supply price and 000 won in the supply price, and received as a result of the combination of metal purchase at the supply price provided similar to DM metal.

-SS commenced a mixed metal transaction with BB metal in order to meet the loss of the transaction with D metal, while taking the method of purchasing the supplied unit price with which it is received by adding a certain amount to the supplied unit price, and it is not reasonable and reasonable.

BB Metal input tax deduction

- SS reported on the date of the first half of August 3, 2012 with respect to the value-added tax for the first half of the year 2012 and had BB metal deduct the input tax amount of KRW 651,00,000. However, Z resources are determined to have B metal deduct the input tax amount by issuing only tax invoices without real transactions.

3) TT, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was investigated on November 13, 2012, and stated to the following purport:

Before the establishment of the Plaintiff, KK displayed mixed metal sampling, and after that, it displayed the Chinese-China test, which is a Chinese-China-China-China, and it established the Plaintiff on the ground that it has business feasibility in China after testing ingredients in China. The Plaintiff did not have separate offices, storages, storages, etc. excluding the office located in the West-gu, but did not have sufficient financial capacity. In order to operate a business with a field, storages, etc., there is a lot of funds, but it was not possible to obtain funds due to lack of financial capacity.

After the mixed metal is purchased, it is exported in the state of purchase without any separate processing or packing, and it is exported in the state of packing in one ton maus, which is at the time of purchase from BB metal.

In China, the unit price was determined in TPPL. The unit price was 14.19 US dollars per km, and the sampling was not only for sending it to K prior to the establishment of the plaintiff.

The succession was from BB metal, and the mixed metal contained in BB metal for one ton of the first purchase condition is loaded in a container, and shall be transported after:

KK came to know about about 3 years before the beginning of the work related to personal goods.

If we send samples from BB metal to Korea, we send them to China. The component test was only once before the establishment of the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff has no warehouse or storage space, and the transaction with BB metal is conducted without movement of the goods.

In the case of purchase from BB metal, the volume of goods was confirmed. It is because it was believed that it was a place where there was a continuous transaction rate for the use of the BB metal accounting while not using any other accounts at the time of export.

If B metal issues a tax invoice, the price of goods shall be paid immediately.

(2) From April 18, 2012 to June 18, 2012, the Plaintiff received 336,47.km from BB metal to KRW 16,00 (value-added tax separate). From June 21, 2012 to June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was supplied 72,92.km per 15,000 won (value-added tax separate) for mixed metal.

4) KK, the representative director of BB metal, was investigated on September 4, 2012, and stated to the following purport:

From January 2010 to March 2012, 2012, BB metal has been working as the head of the on-site management department from D metal.

It was wanting to work independently at the time of work in DM, but it was found that there was a market from TT after receiving a mixed metal sample sample from SS, which was a customer of DM, and that there was a new customer.

TT had been known at the time of work in DNA metal, and TT had established BB metal on the Chinese side while it was considered to find out the market for mixed metals, and TT had established and traded the Plaintiff.

At the time of the mixed metal supply, there was no movement from BB metal to the Plaintiff. Since there was no storage, the Plaintiff stored the goods from BB metal even after the supply of them.

The measurement work in the general industry shall be carried out at each time of the movement of goods, and because there is no storage, the plaintiff did not take any measurement work at the time of the supply of goods from the BB metal. The measurement work is being carried out at the time of the purchase of goods from the Z resources, and the container work for the export of goods supplied to the plaintiff is carried out at the BB metal business site, so the measurement work is carried out through BB metal.

BB metal was paid from the Plaintiff on the date of issuance of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff on the basis of the measurement certificate prepared when purchasing mixed metals from Z resources.

At the time of receiving the sampling of mixed metal from the Z resource, there was a phrase that it is possible to secure more than 100 tons per month, and on the BG metal, the Plaintiff asked the market to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was able to secure the market, so the payment of the mixed metal was made at least 100 tons per month, and the payment is made in the form of BB metal and BB metal is paid to the Z resource after the Plaintiff was paid from the Chinese customer. Upon receipt of the payment from the Chinese customer, the payment is made to the Z resource as the first supplier on the same day.

At the beginning of 2012, at the time of working in DM, it became known to be the Act on the Prevention of Disasters with SS and Transactions;

5) SS was investigated on November 9, 2012, and stated to the following purport:

From the end of March 2012, mixed metals began to be supplied to BB metal.

In the process of handling copper products, mixed metals were known in the process of handling them, and losses incurred by copper products were traded on the basis of the fact that the mixed metals were traded.

If KK is a mixed metal, the delivery was commenced by proposing the sampling to be sent more.

Since it is well aware of the mixed metal, the supply price was determined as determined in BB metal by requesting the component inspection.

In order to purchase a price lower than the estimated sales price, the other party suggested that he would not supply the goods, and that the other party would not supply the goods. Therefore, he purchased approximately KRW 1,400 with a higher price than the estimated sales price. On the other hand, if the transaction is continued, the tax invoice will also be issued and the low price will be able to return to the lower unit price, making transactions.

The mixed metal was purchased with one ton, contained in a mix.

6) The Defendant withdrawn the instant tax invoice processed during the first period of March 2013 by the Plaintiff on or around March 2013.

On the ground that the plaintiff and TT were accused of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (taxes).In the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, the District Prosecutors' Office decided on July 7, 2013 and April 4, 2013 that there was no suspicion (defluence of evidence).

Recognizing the Plaintiff’s normal export of mixed metals to China, the Defendant issued a false sales tax invoice by supplying goods to BB metal without purchase data, and the Plaintiff also issued a false purchase tax invoice issued from BB metal. However, the Plaintiff actually purchased goods at other places and then presumed that the tax invoice was issued, such as purchased from BB metal, is presumed to have been issued.

The plaintiff claims that he made a normal purchase, and presented the fact that he exported to China due to its evidentiary materials, etc.

The defendant recognized the fact that the plaintiff purchased and exported goods, and the plaintiff did not present the grounds that the plaintiff was issued a false purchase tax invoice, so the evidence is insufficient.

【Matters in respect of which there is no dispute over recognition, evidence Nos. 8, 10, 11, and evidence Nos. 4 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) The allegation that the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice

section 22.

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act is different from the fact is that the income tax is subject to taxation. When the entries in the act or transaction are nominal, and there is a person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that 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. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied, or the person to whom the goods or service is supplied, and the price and time thereof (referring

살피건대, 앞서 본 사실관계 및 앞서 든 증거에 변론 전체의 취지룰 종합하여알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정，즉 ① 원고는 금속을 매입하여 수출하는 데 필수적인 하치장，운반용 차량, 계근장치 등을 보유하고 있지 않을 뿐만 아니라 직원도 대표이사TTT과 경리 직원 1명으로 총 2명에 불과한 점，② KKK가 조사를 받으면서 진술한 내용에 의하면，원고는 BB금속으로부터 적게는 수천만 원 많게는 수억원의 혼합금속을 매입하면서도 직접 무게를 확인하는 계근작업을 하지 않고，BB금속이 ZZ자원으로부터 혼합금속을 매입할 때 작성되었다는 계량증명서를 토대로 하여 세금계산서를 수취하고 대금을 지급하였으며，매입한 혼합금속을 매입 당시의 상태(1 톤 마대자루에 담겨 있음) 그대로 자신의 하치장이 아닌 BB금속의 하치장에 보관하다가 중국으로 수출할 때 BB금속을 통해 계근작업을 하였다는 것인바, 이는 일반적인 거래 관행에 비추어 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 점, ③ 원고는 BB금속이 설립된 2012. 4. 4.로부터 불과 약 1주일 후인 2012. 4. 13. 설립된 점(사업자등록은 2012. 4. 17. 이루어졌다)，④ SSS은 조사를 받으면서 BB금속에 혼합금속을 공급하게 된 경위에 관하여 DD금속과의 거래에서 발행한 손실을 만회하기 위해서라고 주장하였으나，SSS은 BB금속에서 제시한 매출 단가보다 비싼 가격에 혼합금속을 매입함으로써 손실을 입었던점, ⑤ SSS과 BB금속，BB금속과 원고 사이에 작성된 물품공급약정서는 작성일자가 2012. 4. 18,로 동일할 뿐만 아니라 내용 . 형식이 동일한 점，⑥ ZZ자원이 발행한세금계산서는 가공 세금계산서로 인정되어 고발된 점，⑦ ZZ자원은 2012년 1기분 부가가치세에 관하여 기한 후 신고함으로써 BB금속으로 하여금 매입세액을 공제받도록하였던 점，⑧ ZZ자원은 2012년 1기분 부가가치세를 기한 후 신고한 후 납부하지 않았고，사실상 폐업 상태에 있다가 2012. 6. 30. 직권 폐업된 점，⑨ 검찰은 이 사건과관련하여 원고가 허위의 세금계산서를 발급받았다는 증거가 부족하다는 이유로 불기소처분을 하였으나，형사소추를 함에 있어서의 범죄사실의 증명은 과세처분을 하는 경우의 위반사실에 대한 증명보다 더 엄격하여야 할 뿐만 아니라 검사가 한 불기소처분에서의 사실인정에 법원이 구속되는 것은 아닌 점 등에 비추어 보면，원고와 ZZ자원(SSS)，BB금속은 ZZ자원의 경우 매출세액을 납부하지 않는 반면，BB금속의 경우에는 ZZ자원으로부터 수취한 세금계산서를 이용하여 이를 매입세액으로 공제받고, 원고의 경우에는 수출업자로서 영세율 적용으로 매출세액의 부담 없이 매입세액을 공제 . 환급받음으로써 이익을 얻기로 공모하고 정상적인 거래로 위장하기 위해 사실과 다른 세금계산서를 발행하였다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

2) As to bona fide and without fault

In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice in this case was a false tax invoice, or was not negligent due to the plaintiff's failure to know it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation against the rejection disposition of value-added tax among the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.