2. Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 5,262,420, value-added tax of KRW 10,068,190, and value-added tax of KRW 2,750,560, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013, shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment as described in paragraphs 1 and 2

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 1. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The purport of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant disposition was unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not constitute a false tax invoice, in light of the transactional circumstances, even if the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact at the time of the transaction, and did not err by failing to know the fact at the time of the transaction, and thus, did not err by failing to know the fact at the time of the transaction.

B. Determination

1) Basic law and determination criteria

The main text of Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011) provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded from the output tax amount in cases where a part of the necessary matters to be entered under Article 16(1)1 through 4 (i.e., the registration number and name of the entrepreneur who supplies, (ii) the registration number of the person who receives the supply, (iii) the price of supply and the value-added tax, and (iv) the date of preparation) are not entered or entered differently from the fact on the tax invoice issued. Thus, in cases where a supplier and a supplier on the tax invoice are issued a different tax invoice, the input tax amount may not be deducted or refundable in principle, but if there are special circumstances, such as the entrepreneur’s failure to know the false name and failure to know such fact, etc., the input tax amount may be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527, Jul.

Here, the meaning of the tax invoice differs from the fact. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer, it refers to a case where the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with the actual supplier, price, and timing of the goods or service regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). The burden of proving that the entries in the tax invoice constitute a tax invoice different from the fact is borne by the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008).

2) As to the tax invoice issued by ○○ Closeness

A) As a result of the tax investigation notified by the ○○ Regional Tax Office, namely, the data on AA resource (representative) and BB industry corporation (representative DoD; hereinafter referred to as “B industry”), the Defendant is unable to make sales on the grounds that there is no actual purchase of waste dong, etc., and there is no warehouse or open-site store for closing dong, etc., and there is no ground for operating a vehicle carrying waste dong, etc. as a result of the verification of the place of business. In full view of these facts, the Defendant does not have a reason for operating a vehicle carrying waste dong, etc. with a customer, including ○○○ Close and EE (Plaintiff) as a processed transaction, based on the following: “The Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued by the ○○○○ Close was considered as a false tax invoice and corrected value-added tax (the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entry of subparagraph 2).”

B) However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 9, 24, 25, 26, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 7 (including each serial number), each of the instant tax invoices issued by ○○○ Close issued was deemed to have no capacity to carry on the scrap metal distribution business, etc., which is the subject of the transaction, and thus, constitutes a false tax invoice. However, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was unaware of the false tax invoice and was negligent in not knowing that the tax invoice was false. (1) The business owner’s maximum amount of 00 billion won was the business owner’s business owner’s business name on October 25, 2010, and the business owner’s maximum amount of 00 billion won was changed two times or more within the short time period, and the building’s business owner’s maximum amount of 00 billion won was no more than 200 billion won and no more than 200 billion won had been registered during the auction procedure.

(2) On May 2011, 201, ○○○○-ri 832-40, a place of business was ○○○○○-ri 832, and a lessor stated that, around May 201, he/she was a company that manufactures and processes yellow bars, etc. using a line, rather than a line of high-speed railroads but rather, was a company that manufactures and processes yellow bars, etc. using a line of line.

(3) Parties to a contract who actually leased the said ○○○○ 832-40, a place of business, the second place of business of the ○○○ more, are snowG, and the SeoguG, a president of the HHd Forest, etc., had the metal processing company operating by others as if they were its factory, and had the fund as investment funds to sell scrap scrap from the processing process.

(4) While LGG is driving as the chief of ○○ Close, recommended the purchase of yellow chips (Yulcochips) through Gouri Kim II, an expert, and Kim II directly visited the place of business located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in December 2010 to check the site where he manufactures and processes yellow chips. At each transaction, Kim II commenced the transaction with the Plaintiff. At each transaction, Kim II directly recons the weight of yellow chips (Yulcos) that are the subject of the transaction, and then transported the relevant goods to the Plaintiff’s business place through transportation operators, such as Han JJ and Lee K. On the other hand, Kim II transported the relevant goods to the Plaintiff’s business place.

(5) On May 17, 201, the Plaintiff requested to adjust the shortage at the time of the following transaction at ○○ precision, since the actual weight of 4,834 kilograms of yellowdong chips (Yulcochips) taken over on May 17, 201 falls short of 137 kilograms.

(6) The Plaintiff received a business registration certificate and a copy of passbook from the ○○ Close, and confirmed whether the normal business operator was the normal business operator, and remitted the price to the ○○ Close Business Account each transaction, and the price seems reasonable.

(7) The Plaintiff, upon being supplied with yellowdong chips supplied by the ○○ Close, sold normally to the LLL or MMM-PP Co., Ltd., and acquired profits from resale at the level of ordinary transactions each time of transaction.

(8) In the ○○○ regional tax office, KimO, etc. filed a complaint against the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the purport that the actual operator, KimO, etc. of the NO (hereinafter referred to as “NN”) was not supplied with new shares (i.e., water dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp dyp) from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011; KimO, etc. submitted a list of false purchase tax invoices worth KRW 346,045,00 in total on 12 occasions; and KimO, etc. submitted a list of false sales tax invoices as if the new shares were sold to BB, etc. However, it is difficult to view that the prosecutor traded the new shares purchased from GO to be returned to ○○’s de facto market.

3) As to the tax invoice issued by ○○ Roster

가) 피고는 ○○세무서로부터 통보받은 세무조사 결과, 즉 '사업자등록증상 주소가 교회 부지인 점 등에 비추어 누리QQ는 실질적인 사업장이 없어 원고를 비롯한 거래처에 대한 매출거래는 모두 가공거래이다.'라는 내용에 근거하여, 원고가 누리QQ로부터 발급받은 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 세금계산서에 해당한다고 보고 부가가치세를 경정한 것이다(을 제3호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지).

나) 그러나 갑 제13, 20, 21, 22호증의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정되는 아래의 사실 및 사정에 비추어 볼 때, 원고가 누리QQ로부터 발급받은 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 세금계산서에 해당하다고 보기 어렵고, 설령 사실과 다른 세금계산서라고 할지라도 원고는 그 사실을 알지 못하였고 이를 알지 못한 데에 과실이 있다고 보기 어렵다.

(1) 원고는 고철업자인 정RR의 소개를 받아 2011. 7. 11. 누리QQ를 경영하는 김SS으로부터 3,570㎏의 동(銅)라디에이터를 4,400원/㎏으로 산정한 대금 16,422,000원에 실제로 매입하였다.

(2) 누리QQ 측에서는 위 동라디에이터를 집게차에 싣고 원고의 사업장에 왔고, 원고는 계근대를 통하여 그 중량을 잰 다음 사업자등록증상 정상적인 사업자임을 확인하고 그 대금을 김SS의 사업용계좌에 입금하였다.

(3) ○○세무서에서 '누리QQ의 대표인 김SS이 2010년 2기부터 2012. 3. 9.까지 공급가액 합계 9,469,610,000원 상당의 세금계산서를 허위로 발급하였다.'라는 이유로 김SS을 고발하였으나, 검사는 '실제 거래를 하였다는 김SS과 거래처 대표들의 각 진술, 계좌거래내역, 계량증명서 등을 종합하면 실제 거래 없이 허위로 발급된 세금계산서라고 보기 어렵다.'라는 이유로 김SS에 대해 불기소결정을 하였다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of this case is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is accepted, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and accepting the plaintiff's claim.