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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the processing and wholesale and retail business of non-ferrous metals, received three copies of purchase tax invoices of the scrap scrap (Adong, commercial Dong, cans, and so on) (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) (hereinafter “the instant purchase amount”), and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount. The Plaintiff, from the output tax amount, filed a return of value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the input tax amount.

B. The head of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office, in comparison with the fact that BB metal at the second time value-added tax return in 2010 was the cause of the OOO, reported the sales section to the OOO and did not pay the value-added tax accordingly, the head of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Tax Office selected BB metal as a person subject to investigation on data and conducted value-added tax investigation from June 14, 201 to September 20, 201 (suspects on data).

C. On May 1, 2012, the director of the Central District Tax Office: (a) purchased the closed Dong from a third party; and (b) notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming that the Plaintiff, the seller of BB metal, received the instant tax invoice in the name of data merchants BB metal; and (c) on May 1, 2012, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax OOOO in 2010 on the ground that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 31, 2012, but was dismissed on December 27, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, 7 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually purchased scrap scrap from BB metal, deposited the transaction price into the Nonghyup’s Agricultural Cooperative account (OO-O-O-O-O-O), which is the business account of BB metal, and received the instant tax invoice. Thus, the instant tax invoice is not false. Even if BG metal is not an actual supplier, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party, who is not negligent in believing that BB metal is an actual supplier, even if the executive director in charge of purchase conducted the transaction with BB metal directly confirms the place of business of BB metal, and received a copy of the registration certificate, a copy of passbook, and thus, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction constitutes a "tax invoice different from the fact provided for in Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) where 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 is a transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). A person who receives goods or services may deduct an input tax amount if he/she was unaware of the fact that the person who was entered in the tax invoice as a supplier of goods or services was not a person who actually supplied goods or services, but has no duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business operator. Thus, the other party is deemed a disguised business operator based on the fact finding in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a qualified person to a transaction.

(6) In full view of the overall purport of pleadings or videos Nos. 4, 10, 11, 13, and 15-2 and 16, the Plaintiff: (1) the Plaintiff’s purchase-related Doctrine Doctrine, who requested the transaction by telephone, issued a separate 30 tons of the No. 2-U.S.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.S.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.-U.

According to the above facts, BB metal is deemed to have issued only sales tax invoices on behalf of the actual supplier who was not confirmed by linking BB metal with EEM, and thus, the instant tax invoice received from BB metal is prepared and issued as if the BB metal were supplied without supplying the scrap scrap, and thus, is called a "tax invoice different from the fact". However, in order to determine whether B metal is a person eligible for transaction, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have performed his duty of care by directly visiting the business site before commencing the transaction and confirming the site and facilities, etc. In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had any other reason to suspect B metal as a person eligible for transaction. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that BB metal is a disguised business.

Therefore, since the plaintiff is a bona fide trading party, the input tax amount of the tax invoice of this case must be deducted from the output tax amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.