2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. From May 1, 1993, the Plaintiff was a person who operated the scrap iron and non-ferrous wholesale business in the name of the O200-00 (BB), the Plaintiff: (a) from July 1, 2008 to October 8, 2008, 39 tax invoices of KRW 1,987,897,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the first tax invoice”); (b) 111,531,050, the supply value of KRW 10,050 from the representative EE, the total supply value of KRW 70,296,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the second tax invoice”); and (c) 206,000,000,000 total supply value of KRW 11,531,050,000 from the representative of the FFF, each of the input tax invoices was reported from the representative D; and (d) 21,208,000.

B. From February 17, 2009 to May 12, 2009, the director of the Central District Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation related to transaction order with the Plaintiff from May 12 to May 25, 2009 on the data on the change of the representative ofCC metal; and (b) acknowledged the changed database as data; and (c) notified the Defendant of the fact that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice received without real transactions; (d) based on the above notification, the Defendant denied the deduction of the input tax amount of KRW 216,972,40 under each of the tax invoices of this case pursuant to Article 17(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act; and (e) notified the Plaintiff of the correction and disposition of the amount of KRW 373,452,890 (including additional tax) for the second period of February 2008 to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 6, 2010 through an objection on June 8, 2010, but was dismissed on January 21, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 51, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

During the period from July 1, 2008 to October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff paid an amount equivalent to the value-added tax (including value-added tax) for the supply of each of the instant tax invoices to bank accounts in the name of D, new EE, or UG, by means of remitting all the amount equivalent to the value-added tax (including value-added tax) of each of the instant tax invoices to the bank accounts in the name of D, E, or UG. As such, the instant disposition that each of the instant tax invoices was received without real transactions is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

Each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a processing tax invoice received without a real transaction, and even if there was a real transaction between the Plaintiff and the drum metal, since drum virtually lent its name to the effect that the real goods were sold by intermediate sales, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact that the supplier of the goods is the supplier, and therefore, it is legitimate to deny at least the input tax deduction of the 1 tax invoice among the dispositions of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) 원고는 CC금속, HH금속자원, II비철로부터 폐동을 매입하면서 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 폐동대금과 거의 대부분 일치하는 금액을 원고의 은행계좌에서 변QQ, 신EE, 유GG 명의의 은행계좌로 이체하였다.

2) As a result of conducting a value-added tax investigation on the Plaintiff from May 12, 2009 to May 25, 2009, the Defendant: (a) confirmed only the part purchased fromCC metal, small metal resources, and II non-ferrouss as a processing transaction; and (b) issued the instant disposition.

3) In the daily book drawn up by the Plaintiff, the details of transactions between the Plaintiff related to each of the instant tax invoices andCC metal, H metal resources, and II non-ferrouss are included, and most of the details of transactions between the Plaintiff andCC metal are included in the book drawn up by Dad, the representative ofCC metal.

4) 피고는 원고가 2008. 7. 1.부터 2008. 12. 31.까지 사이에 CC금속, HH금속자원, II비철로부터 실물거래 없이 공급가액 2,1169,724,000원의 이 사건 각 세금계산서 51매를 수취한 것으로 보아 원고를 조세범처벌법위반 혐의로 의정부지방검찰청에 고발하였으나, 의정부지방검찰청은 2010. 3. 25. 이j사건 각 세금계산서상의 거래내역과 RR금속, HH금속자원, II비철에의 송금내역에 일치하고 위 조세범처벌법위반 혐의를 인정할 만한 증거가 불충분하다는 이유로 혐의없음의 불기소처분을 하였다. 한편, 피고는 변DD에 대하여 2008. 7. 7.부터 2008. 12↓ 31.까지 사이에 BB상회(원고) 등 6개업체에 3,851,252,620원의 허위 매출세금계산서 69장, 2009. 1. 12.부터 2009. 2. 2.까지 유신금속 등 3개 엽체에 212,799,000원의 허위 매출세금계산서 8장을 발행하였다고 보아 조세범처벌법위반 혐의로 서울북부지방검발청에 고발하였으나, 서울북부지방검찰 청은 2010. 4. 16. 변DD에 대하여 참고인 오JJ의 소재불명을 이유로 참고인중지 처분을 하였다.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 through 51, Gap evidence 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 9-1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) The burden of proving that a specific transaction constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact provided by Article 17(2)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 for which there is no difference or transfer of actual goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008).

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively considering the following circumstances acknowledged through the health team, the facts acknowledged as above, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to conclude that each of the tax invoices in this case was processed without real transaction, or that the main supplier of the tax invoice in this case was a third party, not modifiedD, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Even if modifiedD as the defendant's assertion is merely a so-called "data" with the link between the seller and the purchaser, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the substance of the above modifiedD or was unaware of it due to negligence, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The Plaintiff's above assertion is reasonable, and the Defendant's disposition in this case made on another premise is unlawful.

A) As indicated in the tax invoice No. 1 of this case, DaD prepared a written confirmation of the fact of transaction and a written vindication to the effect that real transactions had been made between the Plaintiff andCC metal, and made a statement to the same effect at the investigation agency in relation to the investigation of the Plaintiff

B) At the time of the investigation into the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserted that two copies of the tax invoices issued by EK (spouse’s spouse), the actual business owner of the II non-ferrouss, were processed without real trade, on the basis of the details of the written confirmation prepared by EK (GG’s spouse), but at the time of the investigation into the suspicion of violation of the Plaintiff’s Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, K prepared the written confirmation as required by the Defendant, and stated to the effect that the contents of the written confirmation are different from the fact, and the Speaker’s District Prosecutors’ Office stated to the effect that it is difficult to believe the contents of the written confirmation on the grounds of the above statement by EK, and was subject to a disposition of suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the two copies of the said tax invoices.

C) The Defendant asserts that 10 copies of tax invoices issued by HM resources to the Plaintiff were prepared without real transactions, on the ground that HM metal resources were closed on January 31, 2009 and no value-added tax was paid after the completion of business registration on December 5, 2006. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that each of the above tax invoices was false tax invoices prepared without real transactions.

D) The date and amount of transfer of money to the variable account corresponds to most of the entries in the tax invoice of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that Daehan transferred the money that it received from the Plaintiff to various accounts and takes the form of typical data from the Plaintiff in full, but there is no evidence to support that DDR again transferred the money that it received and returned to the Plaintiff.

E) The daily account book prepared by the Plaintiff refers to a continuous daily transaction and it is difficult to deem that it would have been recorded if there was no actual transaction. However, most of the contents of the Plaintiff’s remittance and the reference book prepared by changed DD are consistent with the contents, and thus, the daily account book cannot be rejected solely on the ground that there was possibility of subsequent manipulation.

F) The Defendant, based on the fact that the Plaintiff did not prepare and keep the drum metal, Hmetallic resources, and II non-ferrouss, based on the records of processing transactions. However, even if the Plaintiff was in practice in transactions with each of the above companies and with other companies from the previous to the time the instant disposition was issued, the Plaintiff did not prepare and keep the drums. However, it is difficult to view that the above circumstances were the final basis for processing transactions in that the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s transactions with the other companies as real transactions.

사) 통상 폐동의 거래는 중간도매상들이 각지에서 폐동 등을 직접 수집하여 이를 자기의 사업장에 상 ・ 하차하지 않고, 운송비의 절감과 거래 편의상 중간 도매상들 이 해당 납품처에 직접 폐동을 싣고 가서 그 납품처에서 계근과 대금 수령 및 세금계산서의 교부 등을 동시에 하는 것이 보통인데, 원고의 변DD과의 폐동 거래도 이와 같은 형태로 이루어졌다. 이러한 거래관행 하에서는 중간도매상의 사업장 현황이나 창고 실상이 그다지 중요하지 않은데도, 원고는 王림금속의 변DD과 사업을 개시할 당시 구매 및 판매 담당직원인 최TT을 CC금속의 사업자등록증에 기재된 주소인 양주시 백석읍 소재 사업장을 방문하도록 하여 그를 통해 현장을 확인한 후 거래를 개시기까지 하였다.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.