2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2010 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 and the imposition of KRW 357,839,170 for the second term of 2010 and the second term value-added tax for the second term of 2010 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reason for the judgment of this court is as follows: The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the same with the relevant part of the judgment, except for the part to be determined additionally in the following paragraphs.

2. Additional determination of this Court

가. 우선 원고에게 의무해태를 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있는 경우에 해당하는지 본다. 이와 관련하여 앞서 든 사실관계와 증거, 갑 제33내지 45호증의 각 기재, 이 법원 증인 김AA, 전BB의 각 증언에 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ①OOOO센터는 AAA진흥공단이 100% 출자하여 설립한 공공기관이고, AA3사는 2005년 경부터 OOOO센터로부터 포괄적으로 매입・매출업무 전체를 위탁받은 회사인 점, ②원고는 이 사건 거래 이전부터 AA3사 중 CCCC와 거래관계를 유지하여 오다가 그 직원인 이 AA로부터 OOOO센터의 매출처 다변화 필요에 따라 구매대행 거래가 필요하다는 설명을 듣고 이 사건 거래를 시작하게 된점, ③한편 OOOO센터에서는 AA3사 직원들에게 자신의 본사 옆에 별도로 AA3사의 표시가 되어 있지 않은 사무실을 제공하고 AA3사에 전화가 걸려올 경우 OOOO센터 소속 부서에 전화를 돌려주는 것처럼 전화를 연결해 주었으며 AA3사 직원들이 카드사 포인트몰 관리화면에 로그인 할 수 있도록 인증서 등록을 해 준 점, ④ 원고는 OOOO센터 명의의 전자세금계산서를 발급받고 그 직원으로 알았던 구DD, 윤EE으로부터 유선 또는 이메일로 납품, 세금계산서 등을 확인하였으며, 이러한 과정을 통하여 OOOO센터가 보낸 거래명세표를 확인하고 애DDDDDD등에 인수 여부를 확인하는 등으로 구매대항 거래를 한 점, ⑤이러한 방식으로 대금지급과 물품공급 등이 정상적으로 이루어진 상황에서 원고로서는 이 사건 거래가 가공순환거래라는 의심을 하기는 어려웠던 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 한편, 원고는 이 사건 거래에서 별도의 계약서를 작성하지 않은 채 거래의 위험성을 고려하여 0.5% 정도의 낮은 수수료율을 정하였는데, 이러한 계약 체결 및 수수료 산정방식 등은 그 이전부터 원고가 해 왔던 구매대생 거래(OO주식회사와 주식회사FFTKDML 거래와 GG주식회사와 YY주식회사 사의의 거래등)와 마찬가지 방식으로 이루어진 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ 그 밖에 제1심에서 든 여러 사정등을 종합하여 보면, 피고가 내세우는 여러 사엊을 고려하더라도, 이 사건 거래가 가공 순환거래라는 등의 사정을 원고가 알았거나 알 수 있었음에도 이를 확인하지 않은 것으로 보기는 어렵다고 판단된다.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that this case's transaction constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason that is not attributable to the plaintiff's negligence of duty. Thus, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

B. Furthermore, the defendant asserts that the substance of the transaction of this case constitutes the supply of goods on consignment or on behalf of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff should have issued a tax invoice only on the part of the brokerage commission acquired. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that the plaintiff received each purchase and sales tax invoice based on the total transaction price differently from the substance of the transaction, the substance of the transaction of this case constitutes a case where the transaction of this case is received a false tax invoice (the duty office can submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the disposition, even if the lawsuit is pending in the lawsuit, or exchange and change the reason to the extent that the document can support the legitimacy of the tax base and tax amount recognized in the disposition, and it cannot be necessarily determined whether the disposition is legitimate by only the data at the time of the disposition or can only claim the initial reason for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu2429, Oct. 24, 197).

However, as seen above, as the OOO Center was unable to receive the payment in October 2010 among the instant transactions, it sent to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the seller, a prior notice of “the confirmation of the fact of the instant transactions and the request for the payment in October 5, 2010.” The Plaintiff’s total fees obtained from the instant transactions are KRW 84,293,305, and is merely KRW 35.2% of the Plaintiff’s total sales revenue for the business year 2010. It appears that only the portion of the commission was recognized as the sales revenue. However, according to the nature of the transaction, the Plaintiff could receive accounting differently from the substance of the instant transaction, and the Plaintiff appears to have received or otherwise received the payment in advance from the OO under the Plaintiff’s responsibility and calculation. The same applies only to the Plaintiff’s sales revenue that the Plaintiff received from the OO, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff received or otherwise received the payment in advance.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the instant transaction was not conducted under the responsibility and calculation of the Plaintiff, but constitutes a consignment sale or a transaction by an agent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Defendant’s assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.