The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on October 1, 2013 by KRW 10,856,198 for the second period of 2010 for the Plaintiff, the imposition of value-added tax on KRW 14,20,151 for the year 201, the imposition of KRW 124,694,610 for the year 201, and the imposition of KRW 163,89,970 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 201, each of which exceeds KRW 148,629,532 for the imposition of value-added tax for the year 20

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 10,856,198 for the second period of 2010 for the Plaintiff on October 1, 2013, value-added tax of KRW 144,200,151 for the second period of 2011, value-added tax of KRW 390,621,670 for the first period of 2012, value-added tax of KRW 163,89,970 for the second period of 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning of this Court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal or addition as described in the following two paragraphs, and thus, it refers to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. Additional parts

(1) In addition to the last seventeen (17) parts of the judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added: (a) the amount of each taxation portion of the above amount to be imposed shall be as specified in the following table.

(unit: Won)

Classification

Value-added Tax

2010

2011

1, 2012

2012

Scrapes

By-products

Part

Value of Supply

67,724,300

131,392,100

127,253,700

Amount of tax

6,772,430

13,139,210

12,725,369

(a) mountain tax:

4,083,768

6,366,331

2,545,074

Sub-committees

10,856,198

19,505,541

15,270,443

BB Industry Related

Part

Value of Supply

2,258,059,341

87,499,453

Amount of tax

25,805,931

8,794,945

(a) mountain tax:

164,815,748

59,879,587

Sub-committees

390,621,679

148,629,532

The above-mentioned foreign countries

Part

Value of Supply

699,000,000

Amount of tax

69,900,000

(a) mountain tax:

54,794,610

Sub-committees

124,694,610

The aggregate of notified tax amounts

10,856,198

144,200,151

390,621,679

163,899,975

In addition to the last 6th 8th part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the supply of goods subject to value-added tax" refers to the delivery or transfer of goods according to all contractual or legal causes (Article 9(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act), which is premised on a change in real rights. Therefore, in the case of the entrustment of goods as in this case, the truster's taking out of the goods to the trustee does not constitute the supply of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985). Thus, the truster's taking out of the goods to the trustee is not the supply of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985).

B. Parts used for repair;

(1) The part concerning the transaction with B(2) of the first instance court's 7th day and 13th day and below) shall be as described below.

An input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded by a supplier and a supplier on the tax invoice, unless there are special circumstances that the person who received the tax invoice did not know that he/she was the nominal owner of the tax invoice and that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the nominal owner of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

According to the evidence Nos. 19-1 and 2-2, thisCC was convicted of the fact that the BB industry was issued a false tax invoice in the name of the BB industry although it was not a actual operator of the BB industry in collusion with the Plaintiff, and the judgment became final and conclusive. Thus, the tax invoice in the name of the BB industry issued by the Plaintiff is another tax invoice in the name of the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice, unless there are special circumstances that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice.

Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and was negligent, the following facts are acknowledged according to each of the statements in the Health Team, Gap evidence Nos. 18 through 36, Eul evidence Nos. 10, 18, 22, and 23 (including each number).

① As the Plaintiff’s representative director, the Kim E-E, who is in fact in charge of the Plaintiff Company, stated that thisCC was investigated by an investigative agency on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and was trading in the name of BB industry with the knowledge that it was an employee of the BB industry. However, on the other hand, KimE reported thisCC as if it was an employee of the Plaintiff Company and false labor expenditure in order to avoid imposing corporate tax on the Plaintiff.

② The KimE stated that, in the course of tax investigation, there is a need to urgently seek materials to meet the short time limit that the transaction partner requires, and that, in order to maintain the transaction partner, they would not sell the materials.

③ The Plaintiff asserted that it was made in the course of transaction with BB industry and submitted a majority of the specifications of transaction with the Plaintiff Company’s order and BB industry. However, the above documents do not infash the use of facsimile that recognized that it was used in the course of investigation (the transaction statement made in the name of B industry does not include the telephone number, facsimile number, etc. of BB industry) and there is no signature or seal of the person in charge of BB industry or the person in charge of the transaction, which may be recognized that the above transaction statement was made by B industry.

④ In addition to the issuance of the business registration certificate, KimE did not make any effort to verify whether the BB industry is a genuine high-speed sales business entity, and whether thisCC is an employee of the BB industry, and even in ordering the goods, it used thisCC’s mobile phone. (EE stated at the time of the investigation that it was ordered by using BB office telephone at the time of the investigation, but the phone number of the BB industry used by KimE is entirely different from the phone number of the BB industry as identified in the integrated national tax integration network, and there is no other confirmation that it was a telephone number of the B industry).

Comprehensively taking account of these facts, the Plaintiff appears to have known that thisCC was making a transaction by lending the name of BB industry. Even if it was unaware of such fact, as recognized in the course of the investigation by KimE, it is true that many of the transaction without data was made in the scrap metal transaction. However, in the transaction of goods, it is essential to carry out tax invoice-related business affairs. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be said to have been negligent on the ground that the Plaintiff obtained the business registration certificate of BB industry from thisCC and confirmed it or deposited the transaction price into the account of BB industry.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 10,856,198 for the second period of 2010 for the plaintiff on October 1, 2013, the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 124,694,610 for the second period of 201, the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 144,20,151 for the second period of 201, and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 163,89,970 for the second period of 2012, the amount exceeding KRW 148,629,532 for the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 163,89,970 for the second period of 2012 shall be revoked, respectively. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope

Therefore, the part against the defendant who was partially accepted the defendant's appeal and revoked in excess of the above disposition among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the remaining appeal by the defendant shall be dismissed