Seocho-2016- Busan District Court-145 (Law No. 169.28, 2016)

Since the supplier of the tax invoice is not a purchaser, there is a lack of evidence that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier, and that there is no other tax invoice.

The meaning of a tax invoice different from the fact shall be proved by a person who asserts for input tax deduction or refund, unless there is any special circumstance that there is no negligence on the part of the person who actually supplies or is supplied with goods or services, and that there is no negligence on the part of the person who asserts for input tax deduction or refund.

Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2017Guhap20164 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount after receiving a tax invoice ("tax invoice")

The report was filed.

B. From September 7, 2015 to October 19, 2015, the head of the ○○ Tax Office’s tax investigation result with respect to the Plaintiff

The supplier of the tax invoice reported that the supplier is different from the fact and notified the defendant.

The input tax amount for the second period of January 11, 2016, which was not deducted from the input tax amount for the said tax invoice, to the Plaintiff on January 11, 2016.

Value-added tax 66,790 won, value-added tax 25,985,690 won for the first quarter of 2011, and the second quarter of 2011

Value-added Tax 41,977,030 won was corrected and notified.

C. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff raised an objection and filed an appeal on March 10, 2016.

However, it was dismissed on September 28, 2016.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 9-1, 22-25, 43-46, Eul 1-5

(including number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff shall immediately supply the goods to the Do-dong, Do-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Development Bank from the purchaser of the instant case

(2) If the Plaintiff is supplied with the scrap metal to the purchaser of this case, the Plaintiff shall be provided with the scrap metal.

Since the price was paid normally, the tax invoice of this case is different from the fact.

shall not fall under the category.

Even if the purchaser of this case is a disguised business operator, the plaintiff is guilty of false name.

No person was unaware and did not know.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

(A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013)

No. 2, where the details of the tax invoice are entered differently from the facts, the input tax amount shall be the output tax amount.

in this case, the meaning that it is not true shall not be deducted;

Income, earnings, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and actually reverted.

If there is a separate person, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be the person liable for tax payment and the tax law shall apply.

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, necessary matters to be stated in the tax invoice

Form description of a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services;

Notwithstanding the contents, the subject who actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, and the value and time thereof.

We refer to cases that are inconsistent with each other (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617 delivered on December 10, 1996).

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

November 30, 2017

December 21, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period portion of 2010, imposed on the Plaintiff on January 11, 2016, KRW 666,790, value-added tax for the first period portion of 201, KRW 25,985,690, and value-added tax for the second period of 201, KRW 41,977,030 for the second period of 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Each tax invoice listed in attached Table 1 stating that the Plaintiff was supplied with scrap metal from the authority A (mutual name: △△ iron), NaB (mutual name: △△△△), and MaCC (mutual name: △△: △△△), and MaCC (hereinafter referred to as “the purchase price in this case”) during the taxable period of the value-added tax, 201, as a wholesaler that collects and processes steel scrap, which is a major raw material of the steel industry, and supplies steel scrap to manufacturing companies, such as steel products, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul”), 2010, and 1/201.

[Reference]

(B) Determination

Gap evidence Nos. 1-65, Eul evidence Nos. 2-14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the supplier of the tax invoice of this case

Since it is not a purchaser, it constitutes a false tax invoice.

1) In the case of △ steel:

A) The business registration is made with the place of business located in the area of the jurisdictionA, which is the business owner.

However, the location of the above place of business is a place which is difficult to enter the vehicle and related to the business.

There is no (nivers, cargo vehicles, etc.). During the course of the tax investigation, the competent A shall be deemed as △△ iron.

not submitting evidence, etc. to verify that the business was conducted, and the purchaser, seller, or customer; or

It was confirmed that the entire business, such as the transaction process, is entirely known.

B) The business account of △△ Steel is a leD who runs the sales business of scrap iron with the trade name of △ Steel.

It was managed, and when sales are deposited into the account of △△ Steel, leD shall divide it into several accounts.

After the transfer, △△ scrap metal has been recognized as having been paid for the scrap metal, etc. by withdrawing in cash.

The actual sales office of the sales tax invoice issued was confirmed to be the △ iron.

C) In relation to this, the Do governor in charge of this, on May 20, 2013, from the △△ branch office of the △△ branch office of the △△ branch

However, the prosecution has been subject to a disposition that there is no suspicion on the ground of the lack of evidence against the alleged violation; however, the prosecution has the jurisdiction over the AA.

It was recognized that DoD lent the name of the business operator of △△ steel.

2) In the case of △ethyl

In the 1st VAT period 201, the other company is registered as the representative of this BB during the 1st VAT period.

The purchase tax invoice is received and the input tax amount is deducted, but the value-added tax is declared;

In a case where an Office considers this as a false tax invoice and imposes value-added tax, etc. thereon;

The actual operator of Cheongsethyl shall be DoE and this BB shall be recognized as having lent only the name to DoE.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2014Nu 2013 Decided June 10, 2015]

Supreme Court Decision 2015Du 2015Du 71 Decided the dismissal of appeal by the Supreme Court) In addition, this B is against the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(1) On May 23, 2011, this Court Decision 2013 Magnae 201

Criminal facts such as issuing a tax invoice as if they were supplied, are recognized.

On November 14, 2013, a judgment of conviction was rendered on November 14, 2013, which became final and conclusive on November 22, 2013.

In light of the circumstances, the person who actually supplied the scrap metal to the Plaintiff appears to be DoE, and the Supplier

The tax invoice of this case listed in BB is written differently from the fact that the actual supplier of the scrap metal actually supplied;

gender.

The Plaintiff is the District Public Prosecutor's Office 00 regarding the suspected violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act regarding the transaction with △ethyl.

From August 30, 2013, he was subject to a disposition of suspicion on the ground of lack of evidence, but the above was the same.

Although the reason for non-prosecution is likely to be based on the material, the plaintiff's false tax invoice in advance.

Inasmuch as there is no clear evidence to deem that a transaction was made with the delivery of such documents, such non-prosecution

Only by decision, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be different from the facts.

3) In the case of steel in △△:

○○ District Court 2013 Highly △△△△△04 Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

A false tax invoice in the absence of the supply of goods or services to the Plaintiff

The tax invoice of this case was issued as a crime of facts constituting the crime. According to this, the tax invoice of this case was issued.

It can be seen that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is different from the facts, and this fact-finding is followed.

It is difficult to deem that there are reasonable circumstances.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

(A) Relevant legal principles

A tax invoice for which the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are supplied shall be a tax invoice.

Special circumstances, such as that no negligence was caused on the part of the unaware and unaware of the fact of the name.

(2) No person who receives the purchase tax shall be entitled to deduct or refund the purchase tax under the above title;

The fact that there is no negligence in not knowing the fact that the input tax amount is deducted or refunded shall be asserted.

A person shall prove this (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du20618, Dec. 11, 2014).

(B) Determination

The following circumstances that are considered to be comprehensively taken into account each evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings mentioned above:

In light of the legal principles, even if the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the instant tax invoice was nominal.

Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing it, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is recognized.

and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, as to the tax invoice of this case

The instant disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount is lawful.

1) Social problems arise that the supply structure of the scrap metal industry is complicated and frequent in non-data transactions.

As a normal scrap metal supplier, whether a scrap metal supplier is an actual supplier or not;

It is necessary to pay attention, and the plaintiff has operated a wholesale and retail business since 2001.

person was aware of the actual state of material transactions that are widely existing in the domestic scrap metal industry.

It seems that it appears that it is.

2) All of the instant purchasing agencies, including △△ steel, are new students, and the Plaintiff is with the aforementioned companies.

As the plaintiff purchased a significant quantity of the first transaction, the plaintiff was the purchaser of this case.

It was necessary to pay more attention to the transaction with the Department. However, the Plaintiff did not pay more attention to the instant case.

A business in which the purchaser has been engaged in the same kind of business and the actual scale of the transaction is limited;

e.g. whether the enterprise provides scrap metal by any means, anywhere;

Although it appears that it was possible to grasp it, it was not conducted at all, and the Gu did not investigate it;

To prepare a contract even in the course of a contract, or to review the contents of the contract by practitioners;

It did not go through the process.

3) The Plaintiff visit the storage and office of the △△ Steel prior to the transaction with the △ Steel.

The current status of the situation and capacity to secure quantity shall be verified and telephone inquiries such as business registration certificates, etc.

Although it is argued that it is a normal business operator, there is no evidence to recognize it.

In the case of △ethyl and △ Steel, the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, a copy of the passbook, etc. by facsimile.

The plaintiff is recognized as having received the confirmation, but the plaintiff was registered as a business operator, but the place of business.

A. The evidence No. 39 of this Act was known to the effect that there was no fund for the installation work, such as valleys and fences (No. 39).

(seesee, see, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do11448 delivered on May 2

The place of business of the city of Do, Do and Do, the Do and Do, the Do and Do, the Do and Do, the Do and the Do and

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion was operated, if he directly visited the above workplace, △△ Steel Co., Ltd.

It seems that it could have easily confirmed that it is not a real supplier.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.