The tax invoice of this case shall be classified as if the entries are different from the facts.

The plaintiff is not a real transaction, but a processing tax invoice issued by AAmera, and it is merely a transaction that issues a processed tax invoice based on it.

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Guhap6941 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA, Inc.

00. Head of tax office

on October 26, 2016

on October 30, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first period of August 1, 2012 by the defendant of the Gu office against the plaintiff on August 1, 2014 is revoked (the date of the disposition specified in the complaint's purport shall be deemed to be written in writing).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation established on September 25, 2009 for the purpose of corporate management consulting, etc., received the purchase tax invoices of KRW 842,590,740 (hereinafter “the purchase tax accounts of this case”) in total amount of KRW 842,590,740 (hereinafter “the purchase tax accounts of this case”) from Amera Co., Ltd during the first quarter of value added tax in 2012, and issued the sales tax invoices of KRW 000 (hereinafter “the sales tax invoices of this case”) total amount of KRW 9 supply value to two business partners, including AAWAW (hereinafter “AAW notice”) and AAM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AAM”), during the same period.

B. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant notified the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office of the taxation data that the purchase and sales tax invoice of this case constitutes false tax invoices received and issued without real transaction, and accordingly, notified the Plaintiff of the correction and dismissal of the value-added tax amount KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the first term portion of the year 2012 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for the revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request on April 15, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff supplied waste crap from Amera and supplied them to AAW and AA metal (hereinafter “the instant transaction”), and received and delivered tax invoices lawfully accordingly. As such, the purchase and sales tax invoice of the instant case is not a false tax invoice, but a prior disposition on a different premise is unlawful even if the instant transaction was not a processed transaction.

2) Even if AAmera supplied without materials and used so-called so-called bomb and signboard companies, the Plaintiff was unaware of such circumstances, and thus constitutes a bona fide counterpart.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) Details of the Plaintiff’s assertion

After introducing KimA, an actual operator of AAmers, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply to be supplied with waste craps, and purchased waste craps by paying advance payment to AAmers. Under the above contract for goods supply, transportation charges shall be borne by the Plaintiff, but the delivery and receipt of the goods shall be completed at the place designated by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff did not need to own any key facilities and transportation vehicles separately. The Plaintiff’s employee participated in the actual transaction, such as transporting the goods with A metal or AAAB and giving instructions to the Plaintiff at the time of unloading and mooring. The Plaintiff’s transaction from May 16, 2012 to September 16, 2012 falls under the transaction of this case, not only the transaction of this case but also the transaction of this case where the Plaintiff did not supply the waste craps any more.

B) Legal principles and judgments

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 201; 1) provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount if the contents of the tax invoice are different from the facts. In such a case, if there is a person to whom the income, profit, calculation, or transaction, which is the object of taxation belongs, the person to whom the tax invoice belongs, and the other person to whom the tax invoice belongs, shall be liable, and the other party to the transaction shall not be deemed to have actually supplied the goods or services regardless of the formal contents of the contract entered between the parties to the transaction, and the owner and the supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

According to the above facts, the plaintiff entered into a contract for goods supply with AAmer that does not make a real transaction as a Pamer, and received a purchase tax invoice from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased goods from Amera is an object that does not actually deal with Amera. Thus, the plaintiff is not a real transaction but a processing tax invoice issued by Amera, and it is merely a transaction that issues a processed tax invoice based thereon.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff purchased waste scoo-traps from Amera and traded them to supply AAW and AA metal, and thus, the instant transaction cannot be deemed as a normal real transaction, and the purchase and sales tax invoice of this case shall be deemed as a false tax invoice.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

In a case where an entrepreneur and a supplier on a tax invoice receive another tax invoice, in principle, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refundable. However, if there are special circumstances such as the entrepreneur’s failure to know the disguised name and failure to know the disguised name, the input tax amount may be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527, Jul. 25, 2013). However, such a legal principle is premised on the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier are other nominal stolen transactions, but it is not applicable to a processing transaction without real trade.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have engaged in real transactions. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that it is a nominal stolen transaction is without merit.

On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff’s transaction constitutes a nominal stolen transaction, in light of the overall circumstances as seen earlier, the Plaintiff could have sufficiently known if AAmeral knew or paid due attention to the fact that Ameral was an intentional business entity. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact of nominal stolen, and that there was no negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the disposition of this case as a processing transaction, and there is no other evidence to deem the disposition of this case unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.