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

A. The Plaintiff Company is a business entity that runs a wholesale and retail business of computers and peripheral devices from August 7, 2000 to 16-9, the ○○○-ro, Seoul, ○○○-ro, 16-9, the main territory of the 16-9, the Adong 3*.

B. During the value-added tax period from January 2003 to February 2, 2004, the Plaintiff Company filed a return by deducting the input tax amount equivalent to the purchase tax invoice amounting to KRW 472,243,661 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) equivalent to the total value of supply in AAC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AC”), as shown in the following table, from the output tax amount, and filed a return by filing a revised return on May 25, 2007 to deduct the tax amount on the instant tax invoice from the input tax amount.

C. On August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff Company recognized the tax amount on the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount from the first to the second half of 2004, and requested the Defendant to correct the tax amount after deducting the value-added tax from the output tax amount for each of the above periods. However, the instant tax invoice was prepared by the Plaintiff Company with the BB Ballast Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “State BB Ballast”) on the ground that it was false, and the content of the tax invoice was written by AAC, and the Defendant did not make a decision on the said request for correction until October 16, 2007, which is the time limit for decision under Article 45-2(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as the “instant refusal disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 23 (including Serials), Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 10-1 through 8, Eul evidence 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Referral and Determination

(a)the master of the Plaintiff Company;

(1) The Plaintiff Company was supplied with goods from AAC and received the instant tax invoice accordingly, and thus, the instant rejection disposition is unlawful by misunderstanding the factual basis that is the premise of the disposition.

(2) Even if the actual supplier of the instant tax invoice is not AAC, the Plaintiff Company was unaware of the name of AAC, and was negligent in not knowing the fact. Therefore, the purchase tax amount under the instant tax invoice should be deducted from the output tax amount.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On April 1, 1998, this paper: (a) established and operated AAC with the main office of 156-2, ○○○○○○-dong, 156-2, the vice ○○○○○-dong, the vice ○○○○○-dong, the main office of which was ○○○○○, on July 23, 2001, set up and operated ○○-ro 2, the vice ○○-dong, the vice ○○-ro, the 21st floor of which was the 21st 2nd 183, and closed on December 31,

(2) In addition to AAC, this paper set up a BB ballast, on December 2, 2002, with the co-owned iron from the above line's upper price as a substitute mark, and closed on December 31, 2003. On July 18, 2003, the above line's upper price was 21 and 221 and 73 as the representative in the name of the former unit (after this, the representative in the name of May 21, 2004 was changed to the Kimmm), and participated in the operation until July 31, 2006. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18183, Jul. 31, 2006>

(3) The Plaintiff Company received each tax invoice while trading goods with AAC and BB ballast. Between January 2003 and February 2004, it received the instant tax invoice from AAC as above, while issuing the sales tax invoice to AAC as listed below, and issued four copies of the sales tax invoice worth KRW 38,623,000 to BB Ballast during the period between January 2003 and February 2003.

(4) From January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2006, the Plaintiff Company issued false sales tax invoices of KRW 4,317,546,00 (including KRW 1,070,724,534 for AC) to eight companies, other than AAC, and the amount of KRW 1,070,721,00 issued for AC among them is presumed to have been actually sold for BB ballast, and the remaining 3,246,825,00 won was sold to the general consumers at the store of the Plaintiff Company, and the corresponding tax invoices was prepared and issued to the Plaintiff Company, in falsity.

(5) The Plaintiff Company was supplied with the goods falling under the instant tax invoice from Kim ○, who worked as an employee of the BB Ballast and (State) BB Ballast, and was issued the instant tax invoice in the name of AAC in the process.

(6) On November 7, 2006, this paper prepared a written confirmation that the Plaintiff Company issued a false sales tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 367,691,838 to the Plaintiff Company during the first period of November 7, 2004. The Plaintiff Company’s representative director, who was the Plaintiff Company, was subject to a tax investigation on May 11, 2007, issued a tax invoice to AAC for sales of an amount equivalent to KRW 1,070,721,000 for BB ballast between January 1, 2003 and February 2004. At the same time, this paper prepared a written confirmation that the Plaintiff Company was issued a tax invoice of this case for sales of an amount of KRW 472,240,000 for the above period.

(7) Meanwhile, from October 25, 2003 to June 30, 2005, ○ Ginseng issued a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 3,163,265,031 in the name of AAC without a real transaction, and was prosecuted for having received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 2,787,667,546.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence 10, 11-1, 12-1 through 43, Evidence 17-1, 2-2, Evidence 17-1, 3-4, Evidence 5-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, 3-2, 7-1, 16-2, and 16-1, 2, part of Evidence 18, witness evidence 12-1, and witness evidence 17-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, and 7-2, 3, and Eul evidence 16-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Determination as to the proposal of entry in paragraph (1) by the Plaintiff Company

According to Article 17(1) and (2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where necessary entries, such as the name of a business operator who supplies goods under Article 16(1) of the Act, are entered differently from the facts, the input tax amount shall not be deducted. The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false is, in principle, the defendant who is the tax authority, but where the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction based on the direct evidence or overall circumstances, to the extent that he reasonably acceptable with regard to the falsity, such as that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction, it is necessary to prove that he/she complies with his/her assertion, considering that the plaintiff, who asserts that the tax invoice is not false, is in a position to present the relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9

According to the above facts, the other party who actually supplied the goods specified in the tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff Company is presumed BB Ballast or (State) BB Ballast, and therefore the tax invoice of this case was prepared in a false manner with respect to the supplier. However, it is difficult to reverse the above facts of recognition merely with the statement of evidence No. 23, and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff Company's assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the proposal of entry in paragraph (1)(2) of the Plaintiff Company

If the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice intend to receive the tax invoice from the special circumstances that there is no negligence on the part of the actual supplier who is supplied on other tax invoices, the fact of the title of the tax invoice should be known and that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier, the person who is recommended to receive the tax invoice tax deduction or internal refund shall be included in the same situation (referring to the Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu13206 delivered on March 10, 1995, 97Nu4920 delivered on June 27, 1997, etc.).

In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff Company was unaware of, and was negligent in not aware of, the fact that AAC was not a actual supplier of the goods, even though it was not a actual supplier of the goods, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff Company was aware of, or could have easily known, the fact that the actual supplier of the goods knew or could have known, the BB ballast or (State)B Ballast, which is not AAC.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff company to be a partial owner.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the rejection disposition of this case based on the premise that the tax invoice of this case was prepared in a false manner different from the actual one is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation is dismissed as it is without merit.