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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 3, 2016, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2013, the first quarter of 2014, the second quarter of 2014, the second quarter of 2014, the corporate tax ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the corporate tax for the business year 2013, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on May 3, 2016.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a wholesale business of scrap metal and scrap metal from August 13, 2013.

B. Ordinary steel suppliers are supplied with scrap metal through a "Gu unit company", which is an intermediate company that recruits and manages scrap metal suppliers, and the Plaintiff has recruited and managed scrap metal suppliers as a unit company of BBBB (hereinafter “BBB”).

C. Examining the business form of the supply of scrap metal through a old unit company, a tax invoice for the supply of scrap metal is issued in the order of the supplier of the scrap metal, the old unit company, and the steel company. However, in fact, in order to reduce unnecessary costs, the supplier of the scrap metal does not load and unload the scrap metal at the workplace of the old unit company but load and unload the scrap metal at the workplace of the immediately old unit company (the price for scrap metal is paid to the old unit company, after deducting profits from the old unit company).

D. On the other hand, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for scrap metal supply (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) fromCC, EEE, and DD (hereinafter “Transaction”) which was registered as a business operator during the period of value-added tax from the second to the second period of the Value-Added Tax in 2013, and filed a return and payment of value-added tax and corporate tax calculated by deducting the input tax amount pursuant to the instant tax invoice, as follows.

E. ○○ regional tax office: (a) conducted a tax investigation with respect to the instant transaction partner from July 2012 to June 2014; and (b) deemed that the instant transaction partner constituted so-called “data that receives and issues false tax invoices as if he received or supplied false scrap metal despite the fact that the instant transaction partner did not actually receive or supply scrap metal.”

F. Also, based on the results of the above tax investigation, the ○○ Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from December 10, 2015 to March 25, 2016, and deemed that the Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice as if the Plaintiff was supplied with scrap metal from other scrap metal suppliers, other than the instant transaction parties, despite having been supplied with scrap metal from other scrap metal suppliers.

G. Accordingly, on May 13, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition ordering the Plaintiff to additionally pay the value-added tax and corporate tax for the second term portion of the tax invoice in 2013, ○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, 2013, and 2014 for the second term portion of the tax invoice in 2014 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a tax trial on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 30, 2016.

I. Meanwhile, on July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence a simplified rehabilitation procedure on February 12, 2018, as a simplified rehabilitation case of Changwon District Court 2016 Mahap1009.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 evidence, Eul's 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As the instant transaction party supplied the scrap metal to the Plaintiff, a party of the BB’s old account, in a manner that directly pays scrap metal to the BBB, the instant transaction party did not constitute a false tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice because the transaction party actually supplied scrap metal, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the transaction party was receiving data or a tax investigation. Moreover, as at the time of concluding the instant tax invoice with the transaction party, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care by verifying the Plaintiff’s representative at the time of concluding the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, current facilities, etc., and thus, even if the Plaintiff was subjected to an input tax deduction under the instant tax invoice, which is a false tax invoice, it cannot be said that the decision

The instant disposition is unlawful.

B. As to whether the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the transaction party of this case can be acknowledged as having issued the tax invoice of this case by pretending that the plaintiff was supplied by the transaction party of this case, even though the transaction party did not have supplied the scrap metal to the plaintiff, even though the transaction party of this case did not have supplied the scrap metal to the plaintiff. Therefore, the tax invoice of this case is deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion of this part is rejected.

A) The part onCC among the transaction parties of the instant case

(1)CC, located in ○○○○○○○ Dong, was originally operated by three companies. On June 2013, III, upon receiving and issuing false tax invoices, was subject to a tax investigation, and thereafter, the existing business registration was abolished, and the FF, which was in charge of the accounting and accounting affairs ofCC, was required to newly register the same trade name.

(2) Since July 2013 to April 2014, FF received false tax invoices equivalent to the supply price of ○○○○○○○○○, in the name ofCC, as if it had not been supplied with scrap metal in spite of the fact that it was actually supplied with scrap metal from EE, etc., and was indicted for the above criminal facts and sentenced to a suspended sentence of 3 years of suspension of execution, 2015No268, Busan High Court Decision 2015No268, the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 22, 2015).

(3) The above tax invoice recognized as a false tax invoice in a criminal case accounts for approximately 95% of the tax invoice issued byCC from July 2013 to April 2014. In addition to these facts, in light of the developments leading up to the establishment ofCC, it shall be deemed thatCC actually received only the tax invoice without being supplied with the scrap metal.

(4) If so, it cannot be deemed thatCC, which falls under data, actually supplied scrap metal to the Plaintiff. As such, the part of the instant tax invoice issued byCC constitutes a false tax invoice.

B) Part on EE among the customers of the instant case

(1) GGG, the representative of the EEE, was indicted for criminal charges that received and issued false tax invoices equivalent to the total value of 000 won in the name of EEEE, regardless of the fact that the scrap metal was actually supplied or supplied from July 2013 to June 2014, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years and a fine of 00 won (Seoul District Court Decision 2015No270, Busan High Court Decision 2016Do1979, Sept. 28, 2016), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2016).

(2) The criminal facts of the above criminal judgment include the content on the tax invoice of KRW 000,000 won issued by EE to the Plaintiff from May 22, 2014 to June 30, 2014 (the first quarter of 2014).

(3) In light of the fact that the said tax invoice recognized as a false tax invoice in a criminal case accounts for most of the tax invoices received and issued by the EE from July 2013 to June 2014, GG established the EE on June 17, 2013, following the establishment of the said large amount of fraudulent tax invoices, GG issued a large amount of tax invoices as above. Moreover, GG operates the EE solely without any employee, and ○○○○ Dong ○○○, which used the EE as a workplace, was registered as the place of business of theCC from June 2009 to September 2012, 200, in view of the fact that the EE has actually received or supplied the scrap metal and only received only the tax invoice without having received or supplied it.

(4) If so, data merchants cannot be deemed to have actually supplied scrap metal to the Plaintiff. Thus, the part of the instant tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from EE constitutes a false tax invoice.

C) The part concerning DDR among the customers of the instant case

(1) Notwithstanding the fact that the JJ, the representative of DD, was actually supplied or supplied with scrap metal from February 2014 to December 2014, as if it received or supplied scrap metal, it was charged with criminal charges that received or issued false tax invoices equivalent to the total value of 000 won in the name of DD, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and a fine of 000 won (Seoul District Court Decision 2016No188, Busan High Court Decision 2016No13491, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 14, 2016).

(2) On the criminal facts of the above criminal judgment, the content regarding the supply price of ○○○○○○, which was issued by DD from February 28, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (from February 28, 2014 to December 31, 2014) is also included in the tax invoice of the instant criminal judgment.

(3) In light of the fact that the above tax invoice recognized as a false tax invoice in a criminal case accounts for most of the tax invoices received and issued from February 2014 to December 2014, the JJ issued a large amount of false tax invoices as above from the date of establishment of the DD around February 5, 2014, and the JJ issued a large amount of false tax invoices as above. In addition, the JJ did not have any assets, so it did not have any financial capacity to engage in a large amount of high-end scrap metal transactions, and its spouse had been working inCC. In light of the fact that the 00-dong 00, 000, 000, 000, which was registered as the place of business ofCC, was registered as the place of business of the DD, it should also be deemed that the DD actually constitutes the data that received only the tax invoice without being supplied with or being supplied with it.

(4) If so, data merchants cannot be deemed to have actually supplied scrap metal to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the part of the instant tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from DD constitutes a false tax invoice.

C. Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault on a false tax invoice

1) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the name of the actual supplier and that there is no 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 there is no negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the said name. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7 (including paper numbers), the witness JJ’s testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not at fault due to the failure of the Plaintiff to know that the tax invoice of this case was false, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

A) During a half year period of approximately one year, the Plaintiff traded scrap metal on the basis of the transaction partner and the supply value to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. In light of the facility size of the transaction partner in the instant case, it is impossible to deliver scrap metal equivalent to the above supply value. As such, the Plaintiff was sufficiently aware that the transaction partner in the instant case constitutes data.

B) In addition, the Plaintiff did not properly verify the quantity of scrap metal, which is compared to the place where the scrap metal was actually used in the transaction with the instant transaction partner, and neglected the duty of care normally expected to be performed as a seller of scrap metal, such as accepting the instant tax invoice, upon receipt of the notice from the instant transaction partner or BBB.

C) On August 2013, KK, the representative director of the Plaintiff, acquired the LLLL (hereinafter “LLL”) and established the Plaintiff. At the time, two employees, including HH, who worked as a business employee from LLL, continued to work as the Plaintiff’s employee. However, LLL was a transactional relationship with the CC (at the time when the MF was registered as the representative), and the said employees were well aware of the fact that the CC was subject to tax investigation by receiving and issuing false tax invoices. Accordingly, the Plaintiff could easily be seen that the CC was not a normal business entity, and that there was a problem in the tax invoice issued by the CC.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.