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

On November 11, 2013, the disposition of imposition of the total value-added tax of KRW aa,aa, 200 against the Plaintiff and the disposition of imposition of KRW bbbb, 600 in total of the corporate tax imposed by the former Defendant on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in steel wholesale business in CC 448-5 on the side of the wife population B in Permitted-si. B. The Plaintiff, during the taxable period from 2010 to 2011, received a purchase tax invoice equivalent to c c,c,c,000 won in total from DD ethyl, EE Steel, FF Steel, GG Steel, and HH Steel (hereinafter “instant purchaser”). During the said taxable period, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount equivalent to the above purchase amount from the output tax amount at the time of filing a value-added tax return during the said taxable period, and then included the said purchase amount as necessary expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return for 2010 and 2011.

C. On November 11, 2013, the Defendant excluded the input tax amount equivalent to the purchase amount on the said tax invoice from the deduction amount on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was written differently from the fact.

- 3- Around 2010, the Value-Added Value-Addedd, D, 186 won, Value-Added Tax e, ee, 959 won, Value-Added Tax 1 in 2011, and gg, ggg, 200 won in total, 200 won in value-added Tax e, e, e, 959 won in 201, and 2ff,fff, 076 won in 201. For the same reason, the aforementioned purchase amount was recognized as necessary expenses but was not equipped with evidential documents, and the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial on November 20, 201, with additional tax imposed upon the Plaintiff e, e, e, 864 won in corporate tax for 2010, 6, 743 won in total, j, 600 won in corporate tax for 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received an order from the purchaser of this case at the time of transaction with the purchaser of this case, and confirmed its representative. The purchase price in each of the tax invoices issued in this case is limited to a small scale when compared with the total purchase amount during the pertinent period. Since the Plaintiff took sufficient measures to confirm whether the purchaser of this case actually supplies the goods to the account of the pertinent company, such as delivery of the tax invoice after the succession and remittance of the price of the goods to the account of the pertinent company, it constitutes a party to good faith and negligence

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are different from the supplier on the tax invoice.

- 4- Unless there is any special circumstance that the input tax amount was not known to the person who was unaware of the name and was not negligent, the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount cannot be allowed to deduct or refund the input tax amount, and the fact that the person who received the supply was not negligent in not knowing the aforementioned disguised name should be proved by the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002

Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act does not allow the deduction of input tax in cases where the necessary entries of a tax invoice are entered differently from the facts. The main purpose of Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act is to secure tax revenues through the training of taxation data under our Value-Added Tax Act, which takes all stages of tax credit. However, even if there are such a kind of police functions in the tax invoice, it is difficult for the other party to know the fact that the other party is a nominal business, and the failure to deduct the input tax to the business operator who bears the input tax is contrary to the basic principle of value-added tax, which is not the final consumer’s share as the consumption tax and the intermediate business operator who pays the value-added tax, but may cause harsh results to taxpayers. As such, the person who bears the input tax through the supply of goods cannot be said to have a duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business operator. Thus, there is sufficient reason to suspect that the other party is a disguised business operator when determining whether the other party is a disguised business operator.

- 5- Careers, ② the other party to the document or remittance collected from the supplier, ③ the verification of the place of business, ④ the period and scale of the transaction, ⑤ the unit price of the transaction, ⑤ the accuracy of the statement of measurement certificate, ② the verification of the transport engineer, and 7 the results of criminal cases processing, etc.

3) In the instant case:

The data submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice that was delivered from the instant purchaser, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in light of the following circumstances that can be comprehensively known in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 5, 3, and 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff failed to verify it by an appropriate method even though there were sufficient circumstances to suspect that the Plaintiff was not the actual supplier of the instant purchase.

① At the time of the tax investigation, KK, the representative of the Plaintiff, stated to the effect that only the unit price and quantity are confirmed and traded by the transaction company upon receipt of a supply proposal from the transaction company at the time of the tax investigation. In fact, it appears that the Plaintiff did not receive separate documents, such as the business registration certificate, even in the case of the transaction with the new company (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was ordered to order the FF Steel, GG Steel, and HH Steel, but the Plaintiff’s employee stated that the Plaintiff was ordered from the transaction company at the time of the tax investigation to deliver the goods, and that it was not an objective method of confirmation that the transaction company’s representative is confirmed only by the name of the transaction company, which is not the business registration certificate, rather than the business registration certificate).

- 6-3 The Plaintiff was engaged in a relatively short-term transaction with the instant purchasing entity, and especially DNA and EE Steel was closed for a long time since it was traded with the Plaintiff.

④ The Plaintiff’s 64 invoices from the instant purchasing agencies are identical in the form, such as product specification marks, and there was no entry of the transport vehicle or insufficient entry of the transport vehicle, and only one of three copies of the delivery slip with the contact details of the transporter was contacted with the transporter. Unlike the supply slip, the transporter stated that there was no fact that the transporter had transported steel products supplied by HH steel, etc., unlike the supply slip.

⑤ In addition, the Plaintiff confirmed the original tax invoice, which was confirmed by facsimile or brought about by the transporter, and stated that the Plaintiff remitted the purchase price to the relevant supplier. There were circumstances under which the said purchaser is suspected of being a actual supplier because the letters recorded in the item column for supply with the party who received the supply of the tax invoice from the purchaser of the instant case are the same as the person who received the said tax invoice from the purchaser of the instant case. 6 In the transaction with the purchaser of the instant case, the Plaintiff did not properly confirm that the supply slip and the tax invoice were different from the actual supplier on the tax invoice, even though there were circumstances under which the Plaintiff had been sufficiently doubtful and confirmed the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier on the tax invoice with due care.

3. Conclusion

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

- - Other

Judges Jeong Jeong-hee

Judges Lee Dong-won

Relevant statutes

/ former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013)

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, the timing prescribed in Article 9 (President)

The calculation in which the following matters are entered, in cases where the timing is otherwise prescribed by Ordinance, referring to such time):

Issuance of a tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as a "tax invoice") to a person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) In such cases, after issuing a tax invoice, any error or correction as to the entries therein shall be made by Presidential Decree.

(2) If any of the grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree arises, the tax invoice shall be modified and issued, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

may be paid by court.

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation;

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

2. Where a tax invoice under Article 16 (1), (2), (4) and (5) is not issued, or is issued;

Matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as "necessary items") on a tax invoice received;

Where all or part of the matters to be entered are not entered or entered differently from the fact, each item;

(c) Input tax amount: Provided, That input tax amount in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

m. Corporate Tax Act

Article 76 (Additional Tax)

(5) The head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall replace a corporation (excluding corporations prescribed by Presidential Decree) in connection

16 (2) being supplied with goods or services by a business operator prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and

(b) Where he/she fails to receive evidentiary documents under paragraph (1) or receives false evidentiary documents, the proviso to the same paragraph.

Except where it is applicable, 100 percent of the amount not received or the amount received differently from the fact

An amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to two of the corporate tax shall be collected. In this case, no calculated tax amount shall be assessed; and

additional tax shall also be collected in any case. - 8-