2. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 4,689,120 of the corporate tax for the business year 2014, which was September 2, 2016, against the Plaintiff-limited company, shall be revoked, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25175, Sep. 2, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 27505, Sep. 5, 2016>

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiffs are companies running the manufacturing business of machinery and vessel parts in ○○○○○-gun, ○○○○, ○○-si, ○○○○○.

B. In 2014, the Plaintiffs received each one of the purchase tax invoices (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from a limited company, Do governor, Do governor (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) in the first taxable period of the value-added tax, and subsequently reported and paid the value-added tax and the corporate tax by deducting the relevant amount as the input tax amount, as indicated in the following table.

Suppliers

Persons who receive the supply

Date of Preparation

Items

Value of supply (cost)

Governing Province

○ Industry

February 6, 2014

H-bea (100 x 100 x 12 m)

8,734,400

H-bea (150 x 150 x 10 m)

13,232,500

H-bea (200 x 100 x 10 m)

8,176,500

H-bea (250 x 125 x 12 m)

15,904,00

H-bea (250 x 100 x 12 m)

29,920,000

Total

75,967,400

March 31, 2014

poppy cutting and processing

30,112,560

C. From September 14, 2015 to October 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) investigated the supply value of each of the tax invoices in this case as the processing expenses; (b) deducted the relevant input tax amount; and (c) excluded the necessary expenses; and (d) issued a notice of imposition of KRW 12,324,950 on September 2, 2016 to the Plaintiff-limited company ○○ Industry (hereinafter “Plaintiff ○○ Industry”); (c) imposed corporate tax of KRW 11,829,640 on September 2, 2014; and (d) imposed corporate tax of KRW 11,829,640 on September 2014; and (d) imposed corporate tax of KRW 15,213,370 on September 2, 2014; and (e) imposed corporate tax of KRW 408,516 on September 24, 2016 on each of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff ○○ Industry”).

D. On March 8, 2017, in relation to the imposition of each of the instant corporate tax on March 8, 2017, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the tax base and tax amount according to the result of re-audit as to whether the Plaintiff ○ Industry was actually supplied with the cutting and processing services and the payment of the price was made. The Plaintiffs’ remaining requests for a trial were dismissed.

E. In accordance with the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant conducted on-site verification from April 4, 2017 to April 7, 2017, and determined that the initial disposition is justifiable on the grounds that additional data to prove the cost cannot be confirmed in addition to the documents submitted in relation to the initial decision of the Tax Tribunal, and notified the Plaintiffs of the result of the disposition in accordance with the decision of re-examination as to the initial disposition.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiff ○ Industries processed H-beat supplied from △△△, and supplied △-be to the limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as the "clock industry") and used Hubbe for the construction of a dormitory. The plaintiff △ industry subcontracted the processed H-bebeat to △△, which was contracted from Mackn Industries, and actually supplied the service. Thus, the defendant's failure to deduct the relevant input tax amount and to exclude necessary expenses from the cost of processing each of the tax invoices in consideration of the supply value of each of the tax invoices of this case.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

1) The burden of proving that a specific transaction constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact provided for in Article 39(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, for which the deduction of an input tax amount is denied on the ground that it is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). However, the meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the fact, and where there is a separate person to whom the income, profit, calculation, or transaction is subject to taxation only belongs, the person to whom the said tax invoice actually belongs is liable for tax payment and the other person to whom the said tax invoice is actually supplied or the person to whom the goods or service is supplied and the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied, regardless of the form of the contract entered between the parties to the transaction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du9716, Feb. 16, 1996).

2) On the other hand, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are supplied with different tax invoices.

A. Unless there is any special circumstance that there was no negligence on the part of the person who was unaware of, and was unaware of, the name of the supplier, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that there was no negligence on the part of the person who did not know of, the above fact in the name of the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009). Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances, including the details of issuance and issuance of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services provided, the specific route and process of the goods or services provided, the specific route and process of the supply of the goods or services, and whether the recipient confirmed the place of business or business facilities of the supplier in the name of the supplier, if it cannot be readily concluded that the actual supplier, and the supplier in the tax invoice is merely the supplier in the name of the supplier, it is difficult to

B. Whether each of the instant transactions constitutes a processing transaction without actual trade

The evidence mentioned above and the statements mentioned in the evidence set forth in the above Nos. 3 through 20, A or 3 to 16, the witness

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the testimony of Park○-○ and Park Mandong and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that Ha-be or service was supplied to the plaintiffs as stated in the tax invoice of this case. It is difficult to view that the plaintiffs actually received the tax invoice of Ha-be or service from △△ in fact without being supplied with Ha-be or service from △△, and it is difficult to view that the supplier was issued the tax invoice of △△ in fact, and therefore, it cannot

1) There exists a certificate of supply that △△-be supplied H-be to the Plaintiff ○ Industries, and the content of the certificate of supply is the same as the tax invoice issued by △○ Industries by △△, and the Plaintiff ○ Industry deposited KRW 83,564,140, including value-added tax, into the bank account of △△△△ on February 6, 2014, on which the tax invoice was issued. The △△ industry was supplied with H-bebe from Plaintiff ○ Industry, and was actually used in the construction of a factory and a dormitory construction of a new warehouse of △△ Construction.

2) There exists a settlement agreement between △△ and the Plaintiff △△ industry in March 2014, and the settlement amount of which is equal to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff △△ industry in △△. The Plaintiff △△ industry deposited KRW 33,124,316, including value-added tax, into the bank account of △△△△ on September 1, 2014. The △△△ industry was awarded a contract for poppy production and processing services, and then subcontracted it to the Plaintiff △△△ industry.

3) On January 23, 2014, the Do governor opened a business and closed the business on December 31, 2014. During that period, he reported the output tax amount of KRW 2,261,612,00, input tax amount of KRW 1,158,275,00, including the portion of non-reported decision-making, as well as the input tax amount of KRW 1,158,275,00. The Do governor was investigated as a so-called data company that evades tax by using a false tax invoice, but it is difficult to regard as a company that has no substance, and in fact, it appears that the sales was raised while operating a certain part of the team. In the data survey on the data of Do governor and Do governor, the Defendant also reported the sales of

4) The supply confirmation, transaction specification, settlement agreement, financial transaction details, etc. between the plaintiffs and △△△△, etc. are consistent with the plaintiffs' assertion, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs had been supplied with H-be or service from other companies than △△△△.

C. Determination as to the case where the representative director has been registered

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the actual representative of △△△ is Park○○, and each of the tax invoices in this case contains the name of ○○, a representative, and that each of the tax invoices in this case constitutes a false tax invoice.

Where an individual entrepreneur has borrowed his/her name and completed business registration, unless the name of the nominal lender is stated in the name column of the tax invoice, the tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice stating different name from the fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du43077, Oct. 13, 2016). However, in the case of a corporation, it cannot be seen as the same, and as long as the registration number and name of the corporation actually supplied are stated, it is reasonable to deem that the business operator's registration number and name or name under Article 32 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act are the same as the fact. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

D. Whether the plaintiffs are bona fide and without fault (family judgment)

Even if each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice, it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiffs being provided with H-bebe or services are merely a supplier in the name of the supplier in the name of △△, and that there was a sufficient reason to suspect that the companies that actually supplied H-bebe or services to the plaintiffs were in a separate manner. Ultimately, the plaintiffs did not know that transactions under each of the tax invoices of this case are disguised transactions, and did not know such circumstances and did not err by the plaintiffs.

1) The Plaintiffs received a tax invoice, delivery confirmation, transaction statement, settlement agreement, etc. in the name of △△ in the name of △△, and the transaction price was deposited in the bank account in the name of △△, and there is no special reason or opportunity to suspect that the actual supplier of H-bebe or services to the Plaintiffs was not the △△△ at the time of the transaction. In particular, the transaction between the Plaintiff △△ and △△△ in the name of △△ in the name of △△ in the name of the Plaintiff △△ industry is likely to start

2) Generally, the purpose of using so-called data or disguised traders is to evade taxes by means of tax evasion using false tax invoices, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have paid the transaction price and the full value-added tax thereon through the bank account in △△△△. If the Plaintiffs paid value-added tax, etc. even though they knew that the transaction price with △△△△ was a disguised transaction with △△△, this would result in the risk of double burden of value-added tax, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Plaintiffs were refunded the transaction price paid through the bank account in △△△△△△ and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax.

3) Inasmuch as there is no special circumstance to suspect that at the time when the Plaintiffs traded with the △△△△△ in Korea, the Plaintiffs were at fault in the transaction, solely on the ground that the Plaintiffs did not confirm the current status of the business place of △△△△ in Korea or whether the cash purchase price was immediately withdrawn, it is not readily concluded that the Plaintiffs were at fault in the transaction.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, each of the instant transactions cannot be deemed as a real processing transaction, and even if the △△△△ cannot be deemed as a real supplier of H-be or services to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs did not know that the transaction was a disguised transaction under each of the instant tax invoices, and did not err by failing to know such circumstances. Ultimately, each of the instant dispositions on different premise is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Thus, since the plaintiffs' claims are well-grounded, it is decided to accept all of them as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

Relevant statutes

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 32 (Tax Invoice, etc.)

(1) Where an entrepreneur supplies goods or services (excluding the supply of goods or services exempt from value-added tax), he/she shall issue an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as a "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply:

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives: Provided, That where the person is not an entrepreneur or is not an entrepreneur, a unique number or resident registration number prescribed by Presidential Decree;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation;

5. Other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 38 (Mutual Aid Purchase Tax Amount)

(1) An input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount means the following amounts:

1. Value-added tax amount on the goods or services supplied by the business operator for the purpose of use or use for his/her own business (including the value-added tax amount paid under Article 52 (4));

2. Value-added tax amount on the import of goods imported by the businessman for his own business.

(2) An input tax amount under paragraph (1) 1 shall be deducted from the output tax amount in the taxable period in which the goods or services are supplied.

(3) An input tax amount under paragraph (1) 2 shall be deducted from the output tax amount in the taxable period to which the receipt date of goods belongs.

Article 39 (Non-Deduction of Purchase Tax Amount)

(1) Notwithstanding Article 38, the following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount where a list of total tax invoices by seller is not submitted under Article 54 (1) and (3), or by transaction party from among the entries on a list of total tax invoices by seller submitted;

The registration number or supply value in whole or in part is not entered or different from the fact;

section of the entry, if any, or any part of the entry differently from the fact

(c) Input tax amount: Provided, That input tax amount in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

m. Corporate Tax Act

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses or expenses (hereinafter referred to as "deductible expenses") incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of a corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided for in this Act.