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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on October 0, 2014 exceeds KRW 000,000, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on February 2, 2014.

A. Disposition of this case

1) On October 0, 2008, the Plaintiff was an individual entrepreneur who had registered the wholesale and retail business as its main business and completed the business registration, and received a total of 000 won of the total value of 4 copies listed below from “A during the second taxable period of 2010 (a business owner: 00) during the second taxable period of 2010, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the tax amount related to the above purchase amount from the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the total tax invoice of each of the above tax invoices”), and when referring to some of them, “the tax invoice of this case” is called as “one tax invoice of this case.” Meanwhile, the specific contents of the tax invoice of this case are as shown in the attached tax invoice, which is written in the transaction between the Plaintiff and A.

2) On October 0, 2014, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction based on the instant tax invoice pursuant to Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same) on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s other party to the transaction, not “A” but “B” (red red0); (b) the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice that states differently the registration number, name, or title of the entrepreneur being supplied under Article 16(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 regarding the said taxable period after deducting the previously paid tax amount; and (d) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 regarding the said tax amount after deducting the input tax deduction from the input tax deduction under the instant tax invoice.

B. Progress of litigation

1) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the imposition of value-added tax and filed a request for review on October 0, 2014, but was dismissed on October 0, 2014, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 0, 2014.

2) The Plaintiff sought revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax at the first date of pleading on October 4, 2015, but the Plaintiff subsequently received the instant 2 tax invoice on the grounds that the entry of the supply value of the instant tax invoice was erroneous as to the supply value of the instant tax invoice on the fourth date of pleading on October 2015. Therefore, the Defendant’s revocation of the disposition imposing value 00 won in relation to the instant tax invoice among the disposition imposing value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was reduced on the premise that it is reasonable to deny the input tax deduction under the instant tax invoice.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 15, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (including those with abnormal numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s counterpart to the transaction is not B, but A, and the issue does not constitute a false tax invoice. Even if so, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party in light of the transaction details, etc.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the other party to the transaction of the Plaintiff is not A but B, the issue constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a good faith or without fault, since it knew or was at least possible to know that the Plaintiff was a different business entity with the supplier, which is indicated as the supplier at the time of receipt of the tax invoice.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the issue issue tax invoice is a false tax invoice

A) If a taxpayer liable to pay value-added tax proves that a false tax invoice was prepared without real transactions or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and the tax authority has a substantial dispute as to whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice is substantially false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for a taxpayer to present data, such as books and documents regarding the actual transaction with a supplier stated in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009). Further, Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. Inasmuch as the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, it is difficult to find that the taxpayer actually belongs to the person liable to pay taxes and that the taxpayer actually supplied goods or services are different from those stated in the tax invoice 20.2.

B) As to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances in light of the health team, Gap evidence Nos. 9-7, 18-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1-3, 3-1-3, 3-1, 2, 6, and 7-7, and the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to witness Park 00’s testimony, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

① A opened on October 0, 2008 and closed on October 0, 2013. Sales (based on the amount stated in sales tax invoices) was limited to approximately KRW 00,000,000 during the first period of 2010, but a rapid increase in KRW 00,000,000 during the second period of 2010, and failed to pay value-added tax equivalent to KRW 00,000,000,000.

② From October 0, 2013 to October 0, 2013, the head of Western District Tax Office conducted an investigation into A related to the transaction order of value-added tax, and around that time, confirmed A as a false tax invoice issuer (data), and filed an accusation against 00 to 00 branch offices of the 00 district public prosecutor’s office.

③ Park 00 was prosecuted for committing a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by 00,000,000 district court’s 00 Branch 00,000, and the facts charged were included that the Plaintiff submitted to the Plaintiff the sales tax invoice stating that the sales tax invoice was issued. On October 0, 2014, the aforementioned court rendered a judgment of conviction on the whole of the facts charged and issued a summary order of KRW 00,000,000,000,000. On the contrary, Park 00 filed a request for formal trial under the above court’s 200,000,000 won, but the request for formal trial was withdrawn on October 0, 2015, which was after the date of the closing

④ On October 0, 2015, Park 00 testified that B received the instant safety products from B and sold them to the Plaintiff, and that B received the purchase tax invoice from B (hereinafter referred to as the “former Report”). However, the list of the purchase tax invoices (Evidence B) submitted by A to the competent tax authority in February 2010 is not indicated in the list of the purchase tax invoices (Evidence B) received from B.

⑤ The transaction items and supply values on the instant tax invoice do not coincide with those on the transaction specifications prepared by A (No. 2 No. 1 to 3, hereinafter referred to as “A transaction specifications”).

④ The Plaintiff did not complete business registration regarding the sales business of safety products on the date and time indicated as the date of issuance on the instant tax invoice, and only on October 0, 2013, which passed three years thereafter, added the sales business of safety products to a sub-business category.

7) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant tax invoice and A transaction specifications are not subject to transaction. The Plaintiff consistently asserted that “after the issuance of the instant tax invoice after the lapse of the payment of the price for the goods, the Plaintiff became aware of the trade name of the supplier as “A” (the Plaintiff’s 4th 9-10th, 13-15th, 61-5th, 2015th, 5th 5th 5th 2010), while the Plaintiff transferred 00 won (the value of supply in this case) to 100 bank accounts from the Plaintiff on October 0, 2010 through Internet banking, and that “the Plaintiff had become aware of the fact that the transaction name of the supplier was indicated as “A” (the Plaintiff’s 18th 20th 3th 18th 18th 10th 20). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transfer of the money in this case had already been indicated as “A” in light of its mutual trust.

(8) In general, an advertisement constitutes an incentive for subscription (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da235219 Decided June 24, 2015), and barring any special circumstance, the subject who has induced an offer becomes a party to a contract. According to the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s request from 00 “Non-00 for the supply of stolen and safety supplies at the overseas construction site of 00 companies and for the supply of stolen and safety supplies, and then, he/she became aware of such B through the Internet advertisement of B while displaying the box and safety supplies, and ordered the lock and safety supplies through telephone, facsimile, facsimile, and e-mail (the 4th page 2-9, 5th page 5-10, and 5th page 5-10, May 111, 2015). According to the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s Internet advertising content (Evidence evidence 9-57-7) is the subject who has induced the Plaintiff to subscribe from the company’s business director.

9. Two e-mail (Evidence A 9-3, 4) that Park 00 sent to the Plaintiff before and after the issuance of the tax invoice at issue is named as “I,” and “B,” respectively.

C) According to the circumstances examined in the above Section B, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice without any real transaction or received the tax invoice from No. 1 to No. 2000 to No. 2000 to No. 2000 to No. 2008, and that the Plaintiff received the said tax invoice by making the transaction of real property with A as a transaction partner even after making a real transaction with A, b) 8 and 9. Thus, the Plaintiff’s actual transaction as indicated in the tax invoice between A and A is proved to a considerable extent. Thus, even if considering all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s actual transaction with

D) Therefore, the issue is that the tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice under Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

A) Unless there are extenuating circumstances, an entrepreneur who actually supplies a tax invoice and a supplier’s other tax invoices may not deduct or refund the relevant input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the tax invoice was nominal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42001, Feb. 26, 2015).

In addition, if there are sufficient circumstances to suspect whether the person who received the supply and the other party to the transaction are not a nominal nominal business operator in light of trade volume with the nominal nominal business operator, it is difficult to deem that there was no negligence by failure to know such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) In light of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged in the above (1)-B), Gap evidence 10, and Eul evidence 6, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff seems to have been well aware that at the time of receiving the tax invoice at issue, the "A" recorded as a supplier in each of the above tax invoice at the time of receipt of the tax invoice at issue is not the "B" as the actual supplier, and even if not, it would have been known that it would have been known if he paid due attention to little amount of money.

① The Plaintiff asserts that B and B were the same enterprises as B and they were the same. However, at the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the suit in this case, the name of the representative was stated as 'fixed00', and the Plaintiff asserted that B had only been able to order the safety goods of this case (5 pages of the preparatory document dated October 2015). According to the argument, the Plaintiff appears to have possessed the above name prior to being supplied with the safety goods. However, the Plaintiff’s trade name and the name of the representative stated in the tax invoice in this case are different from the trade name and the name of the representative stated in the name of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff should have verified whether B and B were the same enterprises, and even if the place indicated in B’s Internet advertisement is the same as B and the place indicated in the tax invoice in this case, the Plaintiff could not be described as B and B’s integrated business director at the same time as B and the place indicated in B’s Internet address.

② The content of the aggregate table of purchase tax invoices (No. 6) submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on February 2, 2010 is as shown in the attached Form. The aggregate of supply values as indicated in the instant tax invoice is 000 won (including the supply values stated in the instant tax invoice) of the Plaintiff’s total purchase amount of KRW 26% (the shortest amount including the supply values indicated in the instant tax invoice), and is an amount exceeding the purchase amount of KRW 000,000, which is the highest amount among the purchase amounts from a single buyer, much more than the purchase amount of KRW 00,000, which is the highest amount among the purchase amounts from a single buyer. Therefore, it is difficult to accept with a logical basis that the Plaintiff did not confirm the identity of its trade

③ The instant tax invoice 1 and 2 was issued on the same day. Generally, since an entrepreneur enters the total amount of transactions made during a certain period of time in the issuance of the tax invoice as the supply value, it is not common sense to issue various tax invoices on the same date. Moreover, if the Plaintiff and A were to issue and receive the instant tax invoice 2 after determining that the supply value was underpaid after the issuance and receipt of the tax invoice 1, it would be reasonable to issue and receive the instant tax invoice 1, but the Plaintiff and A do not seem to have followed such a procedure. Although the Plaintiff withdrawn the part seeking the revocation of the portion relating to the instant tax invoice 1 during the period of the instant lawsuit, such circumstance may be considered in determining whether there was any bad faith or negligence with respect to the issues of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s failure to know the title of the tax invoice at issue is without merit.

(3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the issue is that the Plaintiff constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and it cannot be deemed good faith or negligence. Therefore, the Defendant’s determination of the tax base without deducting the input tax amount on the issue under Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act from the output tax amount is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.