2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On July 10, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 18,620,360 on the first term portion of year 201 against the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff corrected the date of the above disposition in the appellate court).

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

In the reasoning of the judgment of this court, the part of the tax invoice in the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the above (as stated in the second half to fifth half of the judgment of the court of first instance), except for the tax invoice in accordance with the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance, 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, which cited it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Part "109,345,000 won" in Part II (5) of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written with "109,345,000 won on April 28, 2011 as of the date of preparation".

B. In the fourth and third instances of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of "the conviction of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act" was "the Busan District Court (201Gohap71,718,839 (combined) and the appellate court (2012No73)" in the second and third instances of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part of "the conviction of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act" was "the Busan District Court 201Gohap718,839 (Joint) and the judgment of conviction of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc.".

(c) No. 17 of the decision of the first instance court was stated in the judgment of the fourth instance. The phrase ".........."

3. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

A) Relevant legal principles

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice that is different from the supplier on a tax invoice

Unless there is any special circumstance that the beneficiary was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the title of the tax invoice, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the burden of proof is borne by the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In addition, in cases where there were circumstances under which the beneficiary could have doubtful doubt as to the details of issuance and issuance of the tax invoice, the price of the goods being supplied, and the specific route and process of the supply of the goods, etc., the actual supplier is the actual supplier, and whether the nominal supplier was not the data, it is difficult to readily conclude that the beneficiary did not actually confirm the location of the supplier’s place of business or business facilities, etc. and verify the supplier’s business registration certificate, etc., without knowing the actual supplier’s name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du959, Apr. 26, 2012).

B) Determination

In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and comprehensively considering the various circumstances as examined below, the developments leading up to the transaction of the instant goods, the Plaintiff’s experience in operating the scrap metal wholesale business, and the current status of the transaction of materials that exist in the domestic scrap metal industry, etc., the mere fact that the Plaintiff submitted by the appellate court and the Plaintiff’s assertion in addition to the fact that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice cannot be readily concluded as constituting a transaction party with no negligence, and there is insufficient objective evidence to acknowledge it differently. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part based on the different premise cannot be accepted.

① The Plaintiff is registered as a business operator under the trade name of “○○ Iron” (hereinafter, hereinafter, referred to as “the Plaintiff”).

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the transaction of the goods of this case with the business registration certificate and the identification card of ○○○, etc. were confirmed, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes the transaction party with good faith and negligence. However, the Plaintiff’s receipt of a relatively large amount of goods from the new transaction party, which had no transactional relation, and it does not seem to have sufficiently made efforts to confirm whether the ○○, the representative of the transaction party of this case, is the person who actually supplied the goods to the Plaintiff by directly visiting the business place of the transaction party.

② In addition, according to the evidence No. 2-2, the plaintiff stated that at the time of the investigation by the defendant's tax official related to the goods transaction of this case, the plaintiff traded the transaction partner of this case with the plaintiff as the business operator of the same industry, and that the introduction of whom was made shall not be memory accurately, and that the appellate court did not accurately disclose to the plaintiff the business operator who introduced the transaction partner of this case by making a statement to the same purport, and there is a question as to whether the plaintiff made the transaction transaction with the transaction partner of this case as the above statement.

③ Furthermore, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 2-1 and 2, the actual location of the Plaintiff’s workplace at the time of the Plaintiff’s supply of the instant goods was located in Gyeonggi-do, but the instant transaction partner can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff had a place of business in △△△△△△△△ Group on its business registration certificate, and in general, in light of the circumstance that the scrap metal, such as the waste Dong, exceeds demand compared to the supply of raw materials at all times due to the shortage of raw materials, it is deemed that the transaction partner of the instant case, in itself, is not a normal transaction in terms of social norms.

④ On the other hand, at the time of the above investigation by the defendant, the plaintiff knew that there was no problem if there was only the goods at the time of the transaction with the transaction partner of this case since it was no long time to commence the business, and stated that there was an aspect of neglect to confirm the actual business operator.

(Record) According to the data submitted by the Plaintiff as of December 11, 2014, which was after the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Plaintiff appears to have received a disposition of "no suspicion from the prosecution" against the charge of a tax offense, such as the scope and radius of the punishment of the tax offense, which the tax authority filed on December 11, 2014. However, in the instant case, the tax invoice and the tax invoice are deemed not identical to the time of the transaction, and the other party to the transaction, and the said disposition of non-prosecution is not sufficient evidence to prove the facts of the offense against the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed to have been recognized that there was no negligence by the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff, who was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice in the instant case was a tax invoice different from the fact. Furthermore, in light of the various circumstances seen earlier, it is insufficient to reverse the said

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as per Disposition