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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. From July 4, 2006, 2006 ○○ Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) ○○ Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”).

On January 17, 2012, when ○○○○○○○-○, a decision was made on January 26, 2012 by Daejeon District Court 200○ Joint○○○○○○○○○, to commence a rehabilitation procedure and to appoint a custodian on the representative director’s ○○○○○○, which had been engaged in a non-ferrous metal manufacturing business, and ○○ was registered as a custodian.

B. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 201, 000, ○○○ received a tax invoice (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) corresponding to the details of purchase as indicated in each of the following table from each purchaser and trader (hereinafter “each of the instant transaction parties”) and filed a return on value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period by deducting the input tax amount pursuant to each of the said tax invoices from the output tax amount.

C. On March 6, 2012, the Defendant denied the relevant input tax deduction on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices received by ○○○○○ from each of the instant transaction parties constitutes a disguised business entity (so-called “materials Trade”) that issued false tax invoices without real transactions, and subsequently revised the increase in the value-added tax amount of KRW 1,00,00,000 (including additional tax) on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices received by ○○○○○ from each of the said transaction parties was also a false tax invoice, and accordingly, the amount of KRW 1,00,00,000 (including additional tax) was accordingly corrected (hereinafter “disposition on March 6, 2012”).

In addition, the defendant against ○○○ on November 1, 2012, each of the 6, 7 of the transaction parties of the instant case.

The Customer may also issue a false tax invoice without a actual transaction

(1) Each of the instant tax invoices received by ○○○○○ from each of the above transaction parties constitutes a tax invoice that is different from the facts, denying the deduction of the relevant input tax amount and revising the increase in the value-added tax amount of KRW 00,00,000 (including additional tax) for the first period of November 1, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “disposition on November 1, 2012”); and collectively each of the above dispositions collectively referred to as “the disposition of which value-added tax amounting to KRW 0,00,55,350 was finally revised.”

D. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the disposition taken on March 6, 2012 and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 27, 2012.

However, it was dismissed on June 29, 2012, and it was dissatisfied with the disposition made on November 1, 2012, and was requested to the Tax Tribunal on February 7, 2013, but was dismissed on May 14, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute for recognition, and described in Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 132 through 135 (a)

(c) the whole purport of the pleading; and

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

○○○○ purchased a closed-dong, etc. equivalent to the value of supply stated in each of the instant tax invoices from each of the instant transaction parties, and thus, each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice.

Even if each of the transaction parties of this case falls under the so-called data, ○○○○ did not know such fact at the time of transaction, and visited and confirmed the office at the time of transaction, and paid the price to each transaction’s account under the name of the transaction party. In light of the fact that each transaction party prepared a measurement confirmation document stating the measurement date, vehicle number, vehicle name, weight, figures volume, etc. and posted the driver’s signature and telephone number on the confirmation document, it is difficult to deem that ○○○ was negligent.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false

Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact. The meaning that an entry in a tax invoice is different from the fact refers to cases where the necessary entries in a tax invoice do not coincide with the actual supplier who supplied or is supplied with the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

With respect to this case, the following circumstances are recognized in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the descriptions of the health care unit, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 30-1, evidence 54-1, evidence 59-1, evidence 59-1, evidence 79-1, evidence 1, evidence 136-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 7, evidence 13-1, 2, evidence 17-1 through 4, evidence 17-1 through evidence 18-1 through 6, and evidence 18-1 through 6 of evidence 18:

① All of the transaction partners of the instant case closed their business without reporting and paying value-added tax, and all of the audit results constituted “data” and accused the prosecution.

② Even though the ○○○○ registered as the representative director of △△ corporation (hereinafter referred to as “△△△”) had never been engaged in the scrap metal-related business before the date of the business registration on January 7, 201, the △△△ reported that the sales amount of KRW 0,000,000, the purchase amount of KRW 0,000,000, and the purchase amount of KRW ○○○○○,00,000, not later than the closure of the business on June 30, 2011. As a result of the tax investigation conducted by △△△△ as claimed by △△ as the purchaser, and the △△△△△△ was also confirmed as materials

③ 송○○(◍◍금속)는 2008년경 자동차 정비업체에서 일한 적이 있을 뿐 고철 관련 업종에 종사한 적이 전혀 없었음에도, 2010. 8. 26. 사업자등록을 한 이후 2011. 9. 7. 폐업하기까지 총 ○○,600,000원의 매출과 ○○○,000,000원의 매입 규모의 거래를 한 것으로 신고하였고, 세무조사 과정에서도 매출세금계산서에 상응하는 매입자료를 제출하지 못하였고(송○○는 이를 밝힐 수 없다고 하였다), 금융계좌로 입금되면 대부분 당일현금으로 출금되었다.

④ 송□□(☆☆금속)은 간이음식점과 피씨방을 운영한 경력 이외에 폐동 매입과 관련한 일에 종사한 적이 전혀 없었음에도 2010. 8. 15. 사업자등록을 한 후 2011. 3. 7. 폐업하기까지 매출 9,○○○,000,000원, 매입 ○○○,000,000원 규모의 사업을 한 것으로 신고하였으나, ★★금속으로부터 매입한 내역 외에 매출에 상응하는 매입 자료를 전혀 제출하지 못하였고, 위 ★★금속 마저 자료상으로 고발된 업체였다.

⑤ This ○○○ (○○○○○ Company) reported the business of KRW 41,00,000 in sales from July 5, 201 after the registration of business operator on December 9, 201 to the time of reporting the closure of business on July 5, 2011. However, the details of purchase corresponding to the total amount reported at the time of the tax investigation were not fully disclosed; although it was stated that the number of billion won related to the start-up fund was prepared from a relative or a bondholder, it was not entirely submitted financial data or loan certificate related thereto; when the sales amount was deposited into the account of ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○”) and then was immediately transferred to the account in the name of several principal and subsequently withdrawn in cash.

⑥ 조○○(◆◆자원)은 2011. 1. 3. 사업자등록 후 4,○○○,000,000원을 체납한 상태

On June 30, 201, the report was made on the closure of the business on June 30, 201, and was reported to operate the business of KRW 49,00,000 during the pertinent business period, but the tax investigation did not submit all the data related to purchase corresponding to the sales tax invoice.

⑦김○○(■■자원)은도매・비철업으로사업자등록을한후약6개월간 22,○○○,000,000원 상당의 매출세금계산서를 발행하였다가 부가가치세 2,○○○,000,000원을 납부하지 않은 채 2011. 6. 30. 폐업하였고, 세무조사가 시작되자 연락을 두절하였으며, 2011년 1기 과세기간 동안 폐동관련 매입이 전혀 없고, 매출대금이 김○○ 본인의 계좌로 입금되면 즉시 수개의 본인 명의 계좌로 이체한 후 다시 전액 현금으로인출되었다.

(8) The amount of ○○○○○,000,000 won without purchase during the taxable period of value-added tax on August 26, 2010 after filing a registration of a retail business of scrap metal for the first quarter of 201.

발행하고 부가가치세 ○○,000,000원을 체납한 상태로 2011. 9. 7. 폐업하였는바, 엄○○는 2009년 ◪◪자원에서 일용직 노무자로 근무한 적이 있을 뿐이고, 세무조사를 받는중에도 위 거래명세서상 폐동의 매입과 관련한 매입자금, 매입 방법 등에 관한 객관적인 자료를 전혀 제출하지 않으면서 매입처에 관하여 밝힐 수 없다고 하였으며, 역시 매출대금이 엄○○ 본인의 계좌로 입금되면 즉시 수개의 본인 명의 계좌로 이체한 후 다시 전액 현금으로 인출되었다.

In full view of all such circumstances, each of the transaction parties of this case is "data, not a company that purchases normally closed roads and sells them again," and it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is a third party, not a transaction party. Therefore, each of the tax invoices of this case, entered in the name of each transaction party of this case by the supplier of closed roads, etc. received by the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, i.e., a false tax invoice entered by the supplier, i., a false tax invoice.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Whether the ○○○○ is a bona fide or without fault

1) An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was not aware of the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). However, in the case of waste resources such as waste Dongdong, it cannot be deemed that the supplier was obligated to actively investigate whether the other party was a disguised business operator due to the nature of the distribution structure and transaction, and thus, there is sufficient circumstance to suspect that the other party was a disguised business operator in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is eligible to a transaction. However, the other party was negligent in not knowing the fact that the other party was a disguised business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 1997).

2) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 채택한 증거 및 갑 제6 내지 119, 122, 123, 136, 138, 140 내지 142, 144 내지 154, 156호증 의 각 기재, 갑 제126 내지 130, 142호증의 6, 143, 155호증의 각 영상(가지번호 있는 것은 각 가지번호 포함), 증인 신◉◉의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 다음의 각 사실이 인정된다.

① ○○○○ received a delivery proposal from each of the instant transaction partners and received a business registration certificate, passbook copy, identification card copy, and the name cards of the representative before commencing the transaction.

② 또한, ○○○○의 신◉◉ 이사 또는 ○○○ 대표가 이 사건 각 거래처 중 대부분의 업체의 현장을 직접 방문하여 확인하고, 현장에서 간판 등의 사진을 찍어 보관하였다.

③ ○○○○○○ prepared a written confirmation by checking the net weight by type of waste Dong, etc. at each of the instant transaction partners, after identifying the supply price by determining the weight, and preparing a written confirmation by determining the quantity of human resources, whenever the waste Dong, etc. is supplied by each of the instant transaction partners. The written confirmation was prepared by stating the date of measurement, the vehicle number, the name of the business entity, the measurement sheet stating the weight, and the entry and exit of the vehicle, and the screen tallying sheet stating the vehicle’

④ The ○○○○ transferred the value of supply calculated by measurement to a passbook in the name of each customer on the date close to the date of issuance of the tax invoice.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, ① ○○○○ was making efforts to confirm whether the supplier was actually engaged in the business of closing, etc. before commencing the transaction with each of the transaction parties of this case; ② ○○○○ was making efforts to confirm whether the actual goods were transported from each of the transaction parties of this case even in the process of being supplied with closing, etc. from each of the transaction parties of this case; ③ ○○○○ wired the normal amount to the passbook in the name of each of the transaction parties of this case; ④ In addition to the above facts, there is no evidence suggesting that the unit price of closing, etc. supplied by each of the transaction parties of this case was significantly low compared to ordinary transaction prices, the Plaintiff did not know that the name of the supplier of each of the tax invoices of this case was different from that of the actual supplier; and it was reasonable to deem that there was no negligence in failing to know such fact since it fulfilled its duty of due diligence.

4) 피고는, 폐동이 고가의 폐자원으로서 공급이 부족한 상태로서, ○○○○은 상당한 기간 동안 폐동 거래를 해왔으므로 이와 같은 폐동의 공급 구조, 유통경로, 거래 형태 및 자료상의 거래 실태 및 그 위험성에 대하여 잘 알고 있었을 것이라는 점, 이 사건 각 거래처가 모두 ○○○○과 거래를 개시하기 불과 몇 개월 전 사업자등록을 한 신생업체들이고, 비교적 단기간에 거액의 거래가 이루어진 점(아래 표 참조), □□의 사업장에는 계근대가 설치되어 있지 않아 폐동 도매업을 영위하기 부적절한 곳이고 ☆☆금속의 경우 제출한 임대차계약서와는 달리 임대차계약을 실제로 체결한 바 없는 사실 등에 비추어 보면 ○○○○의 이사 신◉◉ 등이 과연 현장을 제대로 조사・방문한 것인지 의심스럽다는 점 등을 들어 ○○○○이 거래상의 주의의무를 다하지 않았다고 다툰다.

However, since ○○○○○○ (○○○○○○○) trading of waste resources, such as waste metal subject to the instant transaction, is conducted by means of intermediate trading with the manufacturer of metal such as ○○○○○○, it is difficult to verify whether the intermediate trading with the manufacturer is a normal business entity. Furthermore, it is difficult to verify the so-called “closed trading route as alleged by the Defendant.” Moreover, it is highly likely that the transaction partner’s trade secret will not be disclosed. Moreover, it is difficult for the Defendant to readily conclude that ○○○○○○○○○○ (i.e., purchase of waste metal) did not directly pay for each of the following materials, including value-added tax and value-added tax, because it is difficult for each supplier to determine that the intermediate trading of ○○○○○ (i.e., waste metal) did not directly leave the place of business and sell the waste metal at the same time, and (ii) it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not directly pay for each of the following materials, other than that of the 1-○○○○○ (i.e.

5) Ultimately, the instant disposition is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition by admitting it.

shall be ruled.