Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 15,798,930, and value-added tax of KRW 14,276,450, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013, and KRW 14,276,450, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013,

A. The Plaintiff, a person who runs a non-ferrous metal wholesale business under the trade name of “○○○○”, was issued a tax invoice of KRW 89,482,00 in total amount of supply value, and a tax invoice of KRW 83,410,00 in total amount of supply value during the second period of 2011 from Nonparty ○○ Non-Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Non-Co.”). The Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax by deducting the said tax amount from the input tax amount.

B. Upon receipt of a notice from the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office that ○○ Non-Iron was identified as data upon a tax investigation, the Defendant: (a) deemed that each of the above tax invoices received from the Plaintiff constituted false tax invoices; and (b) deducted the input tax amount on August 1, 2013; and (c) notified the Plaintiff on August 1, 2011 that the Plaintiff shall pay the amount of value-added tax of KRW 15,798,930 (including additional tax of KRW 6,850,741) and value-added tax of KRW 14,276,450 (including additional tax of KRW 5,935,455) until August 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal, but dismissed on March 11, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 4, 9, and Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff actually purchased new shares, etc. from ○○ Non-Iron and supplied them to customers such as South Sea Metal, it is not a processing transaction. The instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) Although the purchase price and sales amount from July 201 to April 2012 reach approximately KRW 13 billion, the transport cost expenditure was approximately KRW 4 million.

○○ non-stock, upon receipt of a remittance of the amount equivalent to the price from the seller, immediately remitted the full amount to the purchaser on the day or following day, and most of the said money was immediately withdrawn in cash. Meanwhile, the ○○ non-stock, upon which the photograph was affixed to create a fake evidence for actual transactions, was affixed with a photograph affixed to make up a fake evidence for actual transactions.

○○비철의 경리부장이었던 소외 신○○는 ○○세무서가 자료상으로 별도 고발한'■■'이라는 상호의 업체 운영자로서, 2011년 4월경 ○○비철의 사업장과 동일한 주소지로 ■■의 사업자등록을 이전하였고, 그 후 ■■은 별도 거래 실적이 없다.

(2) The director of ○○○○ Regional Tax Office received KRW 3,18,590,100 in total of the 53 supply values of processed tax invoices at the end of the second period of 2011, and issued KRW 3,133,871,30 in total, 58 in processed tax invoices. During the first period of 2012, he received KRW 4,132,371,540 in total, 114 in purchased tax invoices at the end of 2014, and filed a complaint with the prosecutor on the crime that issued KRW 9,924,796,740 in total, 235 in processed tax invoices at the end of 201. The crime list in the above accusation contained the above tax invoices issued to the Plaintiff.

(3) In order to purchase new shares, the Plaintiff was able to attend the Ansan Industrial Complex, etc., and came to know the name thereof, and came to know of it. Nonparty Recognizing the understanding of the non-party, and was in the duty of issuing a tax invoice by the new person. When the Plaintiff transferred the shares to ○○ non-stock, the Plaintiff immediately transferred the shares to ○○ non-stock, etc., and immediately transferred the shares to ○○ non-stock, etc., and most of the said money was deposited in cash immediately.

In 00, the flow of sales and the payment details of payments made in the future of the plaintiff are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, part of witness understanding, purpose of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Generally, the burden of proof of the facts requiring taxation is a taxable person, but where it is revealed that the facts can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, the other party is liable to prove his/her opposite position, such as that the pertinent facts at issue are inappropriate to apply the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).

(2) According to the above facts, ① ○○ non-stock exists for the receipt and issuance of a tax invoice without carrying out business activities, such as purchase and sale of the actual scrap metal, and each of the above tax invoices received by the Plaintiff on the criminal facts accused by the prosecution are included. ② The amount transferred by the Plaintiff to ○○ non-stock was returned to Bright, etc., which is a so-called so-called so-called large coal company, and most of the cash was returned to ○ non-stock, and ③ there was only a certificate of measurement prepared by ○○ non-stock company for the new stocks, etc. supplied to the Plaintiff on ○○ non-stock, and there was no other objective evidence as to the fact that the goods were supplied to the Plaintiff on ○○ non-stock. In full view of these circumstances, each of the above tax invoices can be sufficiently presumed to have been prepared and delivered differently from the fact that the actual supplier was actually supplied to the Plaintiff. In light of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the witness witness testimony, and the remaining materials submitted by the Plaintiff on △ metal, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff did not receive any other tax invoices.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.