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

Cheong-gu Office

Each imposition of KRW 466,379,780, value-added tax for the first period of July 1, 2015, and KRW 5,194,960, which the Defendant imposed upon the Plaintiff as of July 6, 2015, and each imposition of KRW 2,495,50, which was imposed as of July 6, 2015, shall be revoked.

(a) The Plaintiff (former: AOO, February 13, 2013; the registration of the resignation of the representative director;

The representative director and the representative director are companies that run the scrap metal, non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail business from July 17, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff’s purchase and sale of waste Dong, etc. in the taxable period of each value-added tax for the first and second years of 2013

On the other hand, as listed below, ① purchase tax invoices amounting to 11 billion won in total of the supply value of Omers Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Omers'), Kenya Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OOmers'), UNFCCC Co., Ltd., and AO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OOmers'), and 'OMs Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OMs') are received from each of the above purchaserss (hereinafter referred to as 'each of the above purchasers'), and the total supply value of each of the above tax invoices at each of the above tax periods (hereinafter referred to as 'OMs'), after reflecting each of the above tax invoices submitted by the Plaintiff, 10 billion won in total (hereinafter referred to as 'OMMs'), OMMM Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OMMMs'), 'OMMMMMMMM', and each of each of these tax periods.

C. For the period from December 2, 2014 to March 6, 2015, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China: the Plaintiff, etc.

As a result of conducting a tax investigation, each of the tax invoices of this case is a processed tax invoice issued without a real transaction, and the Omers, etc. are "bomb coal business entity" or "signing business entity" (the first), and the plaintiff judged that they fall under each of the data as "signing business entity (the second)", and both Omers, etc. and the plaintiff were accused and sent the correction data of the relevant tax against the plaintiff to the defendant.

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition that imposed KRW 466,379,780, and KRW 5,194,960 as value-added tax for a period of one year, after deducting the input tax amount of each of the instant tax invoices from the value-added tax base. On July 6, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective disposition that imposed KRW 2,495,50 as corporate tax for the year 2013 upon the Plaintiff’s estimation and correction of the Plaintiff’s income amount, and imposed KRW 2,495,50 as corporate tax for the year 2013 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal.

However, the appeal was dismissed on March 10, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 5 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is not a processing corporation but a corporation that runs the retail business of scrap metal. Non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail business.

Each of the tax invoices of this case was lawfully issued through the plaintiff's examination according to the actual transaction.

B. In the case of a partial transaction, the Plaintiff’s immediate transport from the purchaser to the purchaser while making an intermediate transaction.

Although the Plaintiff’s purchase is the so-called data, and even if the Plaintiff’s transaction between the Plaintiff’s purchaser and the previous purchaser constitutes a processing transaction to evade value-added tax, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact and was unaware of such fact. In the course of the transaction, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a counter-party to the transaction, such as preparing and managing a book of accounts in the process of transaction, preparing a certificate of delivery, and visiting the place of business to confirm the actual business.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

(a) Relevant statutes;

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

B. Relevant legal principles

(1) The meaning of "where the entry in the tax invoice is entered differently from the facts" and the burden of proof.

Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013)

The main sentence of subparagraph 2 of Article 2 and Article 39(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12167, Jan. 1, 2014) provide that an input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded from the output tax amount in cases where the number of a business operator who supplies all the tax invoices and the descriptions, such as the name or title, are different from the facts, are entered. Thus, in cases where an entrepreneur and a supplier on a tax invoice have received a different tax invoice, in principle, the relevant input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded. The meaning of "where the entries on a tax invoice are entered differently from the facts" under the aforementioned Value-Added Tax Act provides that "where a person who actually belongs only belongs to the taxable income, profit, property, act, or transaction, and there is another person to whom such matters belong, the person to whom such matters belong shall be the person 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, which provides that the requisite entries in a tax invoice between the parties on goods or service.

In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from such fact is borne by the tax authority; however, in a case where the tax authority proves that a tax invoice submitted as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared without a real transaction or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact, and it is considerably doubtful that a transaction with a supplier entered in the tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, as to the fact that the transaction with the supplier entered in the tax invoice was actually conducted with the supplier entered in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

(2) Protection of good faith and without fault business operators;

However, even if an entrepreneur was issued such a tax invoice, the fact of false name.

If there are special circumstances, such as ignorance and absence of negligence, the relevant input tax amount may be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527, Jul. 25, 2013). However, in trading, it is not permissible in violation of the principle of good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, since a malicious entrepreneur exists in a series of transaction processes prior to the transaction, and thus, a person who knew or was unaware of the fact that the input tax amount would cause a decrease in other tax revenues, thereby obtaining a deduction of the input tax amount or the output tax amount by taking advantage of the malicious entrepreneur’s wrongful transaction (i.e., taking advantage of the refund system, and (ii) taking part of the output tax amount evaded by a malicious entrepreneur, as well as (iii) taking part of the output tax amount evaded by a malicious entrepreneur, and (iv) is likely to undermine the basis of the overall tax justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du30120, Apr. 12).

C. Determination

(1) Each entry and pleading of Gap evidence Nos. 29 to 34, Eul evidence No. 8 to 19

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that each of the purchase places of this case, such as the Kenyas and Austrias, which issued the purchase tax invoice to the Plaintiff during the first and second years of 2013, is merely a material as the so-called so-called "explosion enterprise" or "signing enterprise." (A) Kenyas.

① 케OOOO메탈에 대한 2012년 2기 및 2013년 1기 세무조사 결과(을 제5호증 케OOOO메탈에 대한 조사종결보고서, 조사기간 2013. 5. 2.~2013. 8. 29.)에 의하면, ㉠ 케OOOO메탈은 2012. 7. 16. 심정우를 대표이사로 하여 개업한 업체로서 2013. 3. 25. 김OO로 대표이사를 변경하였는데, 심OO나 김OO 모두 기존에 폐동이나 고철 도.소매 관련 업무를 경험한 사실이 없는 자로서 그 신용평가자료나 재산내역 등을 볼 때 명의상 대표자에 불과하고, 위 법인의 세금계산서 수취와 발행은 실질적으로 김OO(2013. 9. 5. 사망)와 이OO이 한 것으로 보이며(심OO와 김OO 모두 이OO이 모든 거래를 주도하였다는 취지로 진술하였다), ㉡ 케OOOO메탈은 이전부터 폐동사업을 하던 업체도 아니고, 조사 착수일인 2013. 5. 2. 당시 케OOOO메탈의 사업장은 공가 상태였으며, 2013. 5. 9. 이전하였다는 사업장도 소유주인 최OO과 사이에 사업장 임대차계약서만 작성하였을 뿐 계약금도 내지 아니한 상태여서 실질적으로 영업이 이루어졌던 것으로 보기 어려운데, 케OOOO메탈이 제출한 매입세금계산서에 따르면 2012년 2기 및 2013년 1기의 단기간 동안 주식회사 일O메탈(이하 '일O메탈'이라고 한다)로부터 278억 원, 주식회사 한O메탈(이하 '한O메탈'이라고 한다)로 부터 82억 원 상당의 폐동을 매입하였다는 것이어서 이를 도저히 실질거래로 보기 어렵고, ㉢ 케OOOO메탈의 자금거래 내역은 일반적인 상거래와 달리 외상으로 매입한 후 당일 또는 다음 날에 매출을 하여 매출처에서 대금을 받아 매입처에 송금하는 형태로 폐자원 자료상이 행하는 전형적인 자금 흐름을 보이고 있으며, ㉣ 한편 케OOOO메탈, 그리고 케OOOO메탈의 매입처라는 일O메탈, 한O메탈은 물론 아래 ③항에서 보는 주식회사 향OOOO(이하 '향OOOO'라고 한다)와 아래 (나)항에서 보는 은O메탈 등은 모두 위 김OO와 이OO이 설립.관여하여 실질적으로 운영한 업체들이고, 이OO은 위와 같이 다수의 업체 명의로 허위세금계산서를 수취 및 발행한 혐의로 위 세무조사 전인 2013. 2. 14. 이미 자료상으로 고발되었다.

② According to the results of the above tax investigation, the business registration of the Kenya was cancelled on February 15, 2013 (the date of cancellation on July 9, 2013).

③ OO is a non-data-free business entity that actually operates OOmers (including Omers and 2Omers in each of the purchasing places of this case), which is a 2012-period (each of the tax invoices of this case pertaining to 1 and 2 years in 2013). A single Omers were not supplied to OOmers, etc. during the two-year taxable periods of 2012 and 2013-year period of 2013 and 204 years of 205 years of 205 years of 205 years of 205 years of 2013 and 204 years of 205 years of 205 years of 2017 of 2013 and 204 years of 205 of 2013 of 2013 of 2000 won of 2047 of 2013 of 2013 of 2013 of 2013.

In addition, EO was convicted of facts constituting a crime, such as the provision of false tax invoices or the receipt of false tax invoices, in collusion with the representative director of EOOO, a signboard company, during the first taxable period of January 2012 (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Do2581, etc.) (a consolidation of Seoul High Court Decision 2014Do2581, etc.) and the Supreme Court Decision 2015Do19647 Decided January 1, 2012).

④ In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the material is limited to another "signing company that manipulates relevant documents as if it was normally supplied with the so-called "oOO" or "signing company", which was operated by EOO, and receives input tax deduction through false purchase data, and the transaction related to the purchase tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff by EOOmer was proved to the extent that it is false.

⑤ On the other hand, it is insufficient to view that it is merely a document to prove the actual transaction because the data, such as the purchase status, electronic tax invoices, measurement certificate, and transport transaction confirmation, submitted by the Plaintiff, are merely a document that naturally retains even if they are formally (in particular, the fact of transport transaction).

A letter of confirmation is only a document attached to the signature and resident registration certificate of a transporter, but not a regular transport contract, but it is difficult to believe it as it is, because it is not supported by objective data, such as data on payment of the amount of the transport contract. Even the certificate of the transport transaction related to the Kenya was found at the Plaintiff’s workplace.

(B) Omers.

① As seen earlier, EOmera also is an enterprise that was established and operated by EO that was engaged in non-data closure transactions, as in the same manner as COOmera.

(2) Results of tax investigation conducted on 1, 2013 and 2, with respect to Omers (Evidence B No. 4)

에 대한 조사종결보고서, 조사기간 2014. 4. 9.~2014. 8. 7.)에 의하여도, ㉠ 은O메탈의 대표자인 최OO는 기존에 폐동이나 고철 도.소매 관련 업무를 경험한 사실이 없는자로서 명의상 대표자에 불과한 것으로 보이며, ㉡ 은O메탈은 2013. 1. 31. 신규 사업자등록되었고, 김OO가 사망하고 이OO이 고발조치된 이후 별다른 영업실적을 올리지 못하다가 2013. 9. 30.부터 사업부진 등의 사유로 휴업하였으며 2014. 3. 31. 직권 폐업되기에 이르렀고, ㉢ 은O메탈의 자금거래 내역도 일반적인 상거래와 달리 외상으로 매입한 후 당일 또는 다음 날에 매출을 하여 매출처에서 대금을 받아 매입처에 송금하는 형태로 폐자원 자료상이 행하는 전형적인 자금 흐름을 보이고 있으며, ㉣ 앞서 본 바와 같이 이OO은 폭탄업체인 은O메탈의 실제 운영자로서 2013년 1기와 2기 과세기간 동안 은O메탈이 허위의 세금계산서를 교부하거나 받았다는 범죄사실로 유죄판결을 선고받아 확정되기도 하였다.

② In full view of the above circumstances, it is reasonable that the transaction in relation to the purchase tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff by POmers is also false.

I think that proof has been given to that extent.

③ On the other hand, the current purchase status, electronic tax invoices, measurement certificates, transport transaction confirmation certificates, etc. related to the Omers submitted by the Plaintiff cannot be kept in the documents naturally, even if they are formally prepared.

In short, it is insufficient to deem it as a document evidencing the real transaction [the Plaintiff’s assertion that the actual discontinuance of transaction, which the Plaintiff purchased from AOM during the first period of 2013, exceeds KRW 9.6 billion, is limited to only one period, and thus, the relevant period’s measurement certificate is difficult to believe the details of transaction (see evidence A (see, e.g., evidence 9). This part of the certificate of transport transaction is also a document not supported by objective data, such as documents for payment of the amount of the transport contract, and it is difficult to believe

(C) JeonO, KOO

(1) According to the results of the investigation conducted by the tax authority on NA companies and NAO (the report on the completion of the investigation conducted by the Plaintiff with evidence No. 1) by the tax authority on the former corporation (the report on the completion of the investigation conducted by the Plaintiff with evidence No. 1), the former corporation is conducting business on June 13, 201 and closes its business on December 3

The reported amount of purchase in the same taxable period is about KRW 9 million, compared to the fact that the reported amount of purchase in the same taxable period is about KRW 15 million, and the reported amount of purchase in the same taxable period is about KRW 32 million, compared to the fact that the reported amount of purchase in the same taxable period is about KRW 3.7 million, there is no financial data proving actual transactions, etc. The KOOO opened on January 9, 2013 and reported the closure of business on April 30, 2014, the representative director of the KOO appears to have no financial ability to engage in the non-ferrous metal business, such as closing operation, when considering the credit assessment data and property details, and it appears to have been purchased from the KO on the date of the 2000,000 won, and it appears to have worked in the form of 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' fund.

② In full view of the above circumstances as seen in the Plaintiff’s operation status, etc., the former and the headquarters are so-called “explosion business” or “explosion business” as well as the materials, and the transaction related to the purchase tax invoice issued by the former and the headquarters to the Plaintiff was proved to the extent that it is reasonable to believe that the transaction related to the purchase tax invoice issued by the latter was false.

③ On the other hand, it is insufficient to view that the materials, such as the purchase status, measurement certificate, place of business photograph, certificate of seal imprint, etc., submitted by the Plaintiff, are merely documents prepared in a formal manner, and thus, it is insufficient to deem the documents to prove the real transaction. In the case of pre-listed and pre-O

There is no difference in the confirmation of the transport transaction.

(2) Furthermore, each of the evidence evidence Nos. 4 through 28, 25 through 40 and the argument mentioned in the above evidence Nos. 4 through 40

In light of the following circumstances, although the Plaintiff did not regard it as a 'explosion business in the form of dumping value-added tax from the beginning as a processing corporation without having to pay value-added tax at all, it is reasonable to view that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a "explosion business" in which the Plaintiff himself/herself plays the role of drawing the appearance of making false transactions as if it were normal transactions by mediating each of the purchase and sales places of this case.

(A) zero percent of the Plaintiff’s scale

① Results of the first and second tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff during the period of January 2013 and the second tax investigation conducted against the Plaintiff (Evidence No. 3 and the written decision on the tax appeal against the Plaintiff No. 1 and the investigation completion report against the Plaintiff No. 1, and the investigation period from December 29, 2014 to April 30, 2015)

In light of the size of the facility, the Plaintiff is a small corporation to the extent that it cannot be deemed that it actually engaged in a large-scale transaction (purchase and sales amounting to 11 billion won, respectively) recorded in the tax invoice of this case in light of its size. In other words, at the time of the commencement of the investigation, there was a 1st ton truck in the 1st floor of the 2nd floor assembly building, and 2-3 employees were engaged in a small amount of non-stock classification work on the 1st floor of the building. In addition, it was confirmed that there was some non-stock in the 2nd floor, but the inventory assets such as financial assets or non-stock which can support large-scale transactions were not verified.

② Furthermore, from July 17, 2012 to July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff’s place of business is 302-1.

On November 9, 2012, 2012, O-O(North Korea change) was transferred to O-O(O-O(O-O) on Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Kimpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Kimpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si.

(B) Relationship between the Plaintiff’s representative director and the O which had the immediately preceding representative director, etc.

① According to the results of the above tax investigation against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s representative director is registered (2013).

2. MaximumO is a person who has no power as a result of operating a closed-dong or scrap metal wholesale and retail business. It is between EOO and a high school that had the immediately preceding representative director, and EO appears to have been in a relationship with EOO as an employee of the Plaintiff even after EO became the representative director of the Plaintiff. EO also seems to have been performing the Plaintiff’s duties. EO is a person who has a relationship with EOO as a person in a relationship with EOO as an actual operator of EOO, EOmera, and EOmera, a person who is in a relationship with EO, the actual operator of EOmera, under the above (1) (a) and (b).

② Meanwhile, the maximumO paid KRW 200 million with capital increase issued on January 31, 2013, and paid KRW 44,000,000 as the Plaintiff’s number of stocks became 41,000 shares among them, and 3,000 shares owned by EO respectively.

In this regard, although the MaO argues that 200 million won of the above subscription money was re-paid at the time of the above tax investigation, it was difficult to believe that the MaO again claimed that MaO was a "security deposit, retirement pay, and a loan from an insurance company". However, there is insufficient objective grounds such as the details of financial transactions corresponding thereto. Rather, the account transaction details do not reveal the details of remitting money to MaOO, and there is only the details of remitting money to MaO, and the above 200 million won of the above subscription money was transferred from MaO as well as the funds received from MaO as above, even if MaO was stated as MaO (OO) in the item column of the transaction statement of MaO passbook, it is sufficiently probable to suspect that MaO was provided with 200 million won of the above subscription money.

③ Furthermore, as seen earlier, EOO is a non-data-free shop operator, who was in charge of Ilmers and OOmers, which is a bomb coal-free shop, or Kenyas as a signboard company, and was in charge of the business period from February to February 2, 2012 (each of the tax invoices of this case refers to the period between January and February 2013) and EOOOOs, Hamers, OOmers, Hanmers, Hanmers, and Hanmers, respectively, and the judgment became final and conclusive. Among the facts charged in the final and conclusive criminal judgment, each of the tax invoices of this case includes the contents concerning the purchase from the Plaintiff's OOOs as if they were normally traded between 1 and February 2013.

④ Comprehensively taking into account the above circumstances, the representative director under the Plaintiff’s registry is the largest director.

The plaintiff cannot be viewed as the actual representative of the plaintiff.

(C) The Plaintiff’s transaction status

① According to the results of the above tax investigation against the Plaintiff, as in the case of the Plaintiff’s financial transaction, it appears that the Plaintiff’s data on waste resources shows a typical financial flow in the form of purchasing credit, unlike general commercial transactions, on the day or following day, and remitting the transaction to the purchaser by receiving the price from the purchaser.

② The Plaintiff, while engaging in some intermediate transactions, immediately transported the goods to the purchaser’s place of sale.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that there may be no data transported through the Plaintiff’s inspection or the Plaintiff’s business place, any of the transaction of each of the tax invoices of this case is “interim transaction” and “direct transaction”, and it cannot be known that what is the data submitted by the Plaintiff is the data supporting the intermediate transaction and what is the data supporting the direct transaction. In addition, if a direct transaction is either an intermediate transaction or a direct transaction, the existence of a transport contract or a transport payment-related document should be revealed, it is not possible to find any relevant evidence (in the case of a confirmation of transport transaction related to the COO2 of the Plaintiff’s purchase place, it is difficult to believe the substance thereof as it is discovered at the Plaintiff’s business place, which is not the KO2, but the KO2’s business place, which is the KO2, and thus, it is difficult to view that the documents proving the substance of the transaction, such as the purchase status, electronic tax invoice, and measurement certificate, submitted by the Plaintiff, are merely the documents proving the transaction.

(3) The nature of each of the instant purchasing places, the Plaintiff’s operational status, and the actual status of transactions, etc.

In sum, it is reasonable to view that each purchase tax invoice issued by each of the purchase places of this case, such as data merchants, as "explosion business" or "signing business" during the first and second half years of 2013, is a false tax invoice different from the fact. In addition, in the transaction of each of the tax invoices of this case at least by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was also a "signing business (II) that takes the role of creating the appearance that false transaction would be seen as normal transaction," and thus, each sales tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to each of the sales places of this case should be deemed as a false tax invoice different from the fact.

(4) Furthermore, with respect to each of the tax invoices of this case, the plaintiff himself of this case

As long as it should be viewed that the appearance of a false transaction was a normal transaction by mediating the seller, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff was unaware of the falsity of the false transaction, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

D. Sub-determination

Ultimately, each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a false tax invoice that is different from the facts, and thus, each of the instant dispositions is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.