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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 49,504,00 of corporate tax for the business year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition of corporate tax”) imposed on the Plaintiff on August 8, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant disposition of corporate tax”) and the imposition disposition of KRW 1,00,00 of KRW 453,852,720 for the first year of 201 (hereinafter “the disposition of this case’s additional tax”) and the imposition disposition of KRW 7,117,50 for the first year of 201 (hereinafter “the disposition of this case’s additional tax”).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

As stated in the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the portion exceeding KRW 1,00,00 among the disposition of this case and the disposition of this case exceeding KRW 7,117,50,00 among the disposition of this case including the surcharge of this case. The court of first instance dismissed the part of the claim seeking revocation of the general underreported penalty tax of KRW 4,50,00 among the disposition of this case including the surcharge of this case, and accepted all of the remaining claims. Since only the Defendant appealed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the portion exceeding KRW 1,00,000 among the disposition of this case including the surcharge of this case, and whether the portion exceeding KRW 7,117,500,00, excluding the claim for revocation of the general underreported penalty tax of this case

2. Details of the disposition;

A. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 201, the Plaintiff purchased B from ○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○”) and received seven copies of purchase tax invoices for KRW 2,422,520,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and sold B to △△△△△△△△△△△△ (hereinafter “△△△△△△△△”), and issued three copies of purchase tax invoices for KRW 2,722,00,000 during the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2011, and one copy of purchase tax invoices for KRW 35,874,000,000 during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2011, and paid the value-added tax calculated by including each of the above supply values in the output tax amount and the input tax amount.

B. The director of a regional tax office 】 (a) conducted an investigation with respect to ○○○○ from September 11, 2012 to April 26, 2013, and determined that the relevant tax invoice was a so-called data or conduit firm that issues the tax invoice without actual transaction; (b) notified the Defendant thereof; (c) the director of a regional tax office 】 (a) also conducted an investigation with respect to △△△△△△△△△△△ from November 24, 2012 to January 25, 2013; and (d) determined that the purchase tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to △△△△△△△△△△△ was false;

C. From November 21, 2012 to July 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation with the Plaintiff on the purchase tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to △△△△△△, and determined that the instant tax invoice was relevant to the processing transaction; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant determined that the instant tax invoice was not subject to deduction from the output tax amount on the ground that the Plaintiff paid the price for services to ○○○○, a vice president, and paid the said KRW 50 million to ○○○, in return for labor. Accordingly, on August 8, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of correction that the Plaintiff imposed additional tax on the corporate tax for the business year 201, KRW 49,504,00; (c) KRW 453,852,720 for the first year and additional tax for the business year 201; and (d) KRW 700,700 for the portion exceeding the amount of the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from ○○.

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on October 16, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on December 27, 2013.

E. On the other hand, on January 6, 2014, after the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant corrected KRW 5,000,000 as an additional tax for underreporting the tax invoice that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff for the consideration of the instant disposition, such as the Additional Tax, etc. against the Plaintiff, to KRW 5,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff

(1) The Plaintiff purchased the actual amount from ○○○○○ and kept it in the warehouse operated by the warehouse company, and sold it to △△△△△△. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be false inasmuch as the transaction was delivered and the price was received accordingly. Therefore, the instant tax invoice based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false is illegal.

(2) The act subject to the regulation of an unfair under-reported penalty is not merely passive misconduct such as not simply failing to report the tax base or amount of tax, but also such active misconduct as concealing or pretending to be the basis of the tax base or amount of tax calculation with the intent to evade tax. The Plaintiff’s return and payment of the first-year value-added tax in 201 based on the instant tax invoice that was purchased and delivered from ○○○○○○○○○ upon purchase is not only the purpose of tax evasion, but also does not constitute an active misconduct. As such, the portion of the penalty tax for the value-added tax in the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Defendant

】 The regional tax office’s investigation against the ○○○○○○○○ who issued the instant tax invoice was identified as the so-called Do government company. Accordingly, the prosecution ordered the suspension of prosecution against the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., and the Plaintiff purchased the instant tax invoice before the △△△△△△△△ was again sold to the warehouse. However, in light of the inconsistency between the statements made by the relevant persons on the grounds of the entry into the warehouse, and the fact that the △△△△△△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was carried out by the warehouse in the process of storage in the warehouse, and the Plaintiff was not involved in the process of inspection or transfer, the Plaintiff actually purchased the tax invoice from the third party and received it from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Accordingly, the instant disposition was lawful since the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice different from the facts.

4. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 39(1)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 of a tax invoice are different from the fact. In this case, the meaning that it is different from the fact is subject to taxation, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction is nominal, and there is a separate person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable to pay taxes, and that the necessary entries of a tax invoice refer to cases where the necessary entries of a transaction invoice do not coincide with the actual supplier, price, and timing of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

"Unless there are special circumstances where an entrepreneur who actually supplies and a supplier under a tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the person who received the tax invoice is not aware of the fact that the details of the tax invoice are different from the fact that the person who received the tax invoice under Article 39 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act was not negligent, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refundable, and the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent shall be proved by the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu49

(1) According to the statements set forth in subparagraphs 2 through 8 of this Article and witness testimony of the first instance court x the regional tax office x the investigation of the ○○○○○○ from September 11, 2012 to May 31, 2013 x (i) the executives and employees of the ○○○○○○○○○○ were those who had no capacity to engage in a transaction with the goods or who had been punished for tax evasion; (ii) the transaction partners who purchased the goods are confirmed as having only the sales tax invoice issued without the actual transaction; (iii) the land on the purchase tax invoice is a company suspected of being suspected of having been purchased; (iv) the purchase price of the goods was determined as having been transferred to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the process of conducting the tax investigation x KRW KRW 9 billion x the Plaintiff’s statement on the goods purchased during the period of sale x eight billion.

(2) However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in light of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 14, and evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 14 as witnesses of the first instance trial 】 】 】 】 】 】 】 the fact-finding results and the whole purport of pleadings, it cannot be readily concluded that the entries in the tax invoice of this case are different from the facts, and even if the contents of the tax invoice are different from the facts, it is reasonable to

(A) While the Plaintiff’s representative director’s ○○, who was in a transactional relationship, entered a registry office in order to extract and gather the sales business, the Plaintiff’s △△△△△△○, which was known through the introduction of the transaction partners of the △△△△△△△△△△, was offered that the Plaintiff purchased the △△△△△△△△ from the existing transaction partners of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and received the said proposal in order to obtain experience in the distribution process. Accordingly, the Plaintiff purchased the ○○○ from the ○○○○ and carried out the business of returning to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

(B) Even if the Plaintiff received assistance from the △△△△ employee in the course of handling the practical affairs related to transportation, storage, and examination of the horses purchased from the ○○○○○○○○○○, it is difficult to view it as an exceptional in light of the following circumstances.

① According to the goods supply contract concluded between the Plaintiff and ○○○○ on April 1, 201 (Evidence A No. 4) concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, ○○○ is obligated to deliver the goods to the place designated by the Plaintiff at its own expense (Article 2), and the goods are examined by the Plaintiff or the business entity designated by the Plaintiff (Article 3(1)). According to the above goods supply contract, other business entities, other than the Plaintiff, are scheduled to examine the goods.

② According to the goods supply contract concluded between the Plaintiff and △△△△△△ on April 11, 201 (the evidence No. 11) concluded between the Plaintiff and △△△△△△△△△, goods ¡¿ (Article 3); the Plaintiff shall preferentially pay the price for the goods when the goods were delivered (Article 4); and thereafter, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ shall pay the price at the time of the delivery of the goods on the date of the storage of the goods (Article 4); and in 100% of the gift price on the date of the storage of the goods, the distribution of profits (Article 5) is deemed to have been made by the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ at the time of the sale of the goods (Article 5). In light of the above terms and conditions of the contract and the motive as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s representative director’s △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

(3) Furthermore, 】 the fact that the customs duties contract with the plaintiff 】 was concluded 】 the plaintiff 】 】 the fact that the payment of the price was made 】 the plaintiff 】 ○○○ store 】 the fact that the payment was made 】 】 the entry into and departure from the 】 】 the entry into the port. The fact that the △△△△△ was reported on the inspection 】 】 the fact that the △△△△△ employee appears to have performed the duty of transportation, storage and inspection under the management of the ○○○○○, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff exercised the right of management.

(C) As seen earlier, ○○○○ has a duty to hand over the Plaintiff’s designated place at the Plaintiff’s own expense. As such, the ○○○○○○’s statement that ○○○○○ transported the Plaintiff, corresponds to the goods supply contract concluded between ○○○○ and the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, this ○○○ stated that △△△△△△△△△ transported the Plaintiff. However, this ○○○ did not directly participate in the process of transport, transfer, and examination, and thus it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of the ○○○○○’s erroneous statement. In light of the above, even if the statements made by the relevant persons on who had been transported are somewhat inconsistent, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was no transaction.

(D) The Plaintiff transferred the entire amount indicated in the instant tax invoice to the account held in the name of ○○○○, where the Plaintiff entered 】 (i.e., the entire amount deposited in the instant tax invoice) 】 】 (ii) the warehouse entered in the warehouse 】 was released at a short interval of one month, and (iii) the amount recorded in the said tax invoice was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of △△△△△△△△△△. This does not appear to have been the circumstances, such as: (a) the Plaintiff transferred the entire amount of the money recorded in the said tax invoice to the Plaintiff’s account; (b) the Plaintiff and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was normally settled and all or part of the settled amount was voluntarily collected, and thus returned

(E) It is difficult to readily conclude that ○○○○○○○○○○○ (○○○○○○○○) was a so-called Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based Do-based 2, 2010, and 89% of the purchase tax invoices were processed from 2010 to 1, 2012. However, considering that ○○ 2,000,000 won was 4,000 won-free Do-based 4,000,000 won-free Do-based 71,000,000 won-free Do-based 4,000,000 won-based Do-based Do-based 71,000,000 won-based Do-based 71,

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which was made before the tax invoice of this case was processed or its content is different from the fact, is unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.