Whether it is a false tax invoice or not

It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice on the sole ground that the Plaintiff did not actually purchase the closed Dong from the instant purchasing entity or incurred the appearance of the transaction on the pretext of the fact that some of the purchasing entities and the pre-stage purchasing entities failed to pay a significant amount of value-added tax, or their operators filed a complaint on the data.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap13907 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

○ Industry Co., Ltd.

O Head of tax office

on January 17, 2014

on October 2014 07

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term of December 15, 2010 against the Plaintiff on December 15, 201 and 000 won of value-added tax for the first term of December 2011 shall be revoked in entirety.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation operating the wholesale and retail business, trade business, etc. of non-metallic metals at ○○○○○○-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, (in January 19, 201, prior to the relocation of the head office, the Plaintiff placed its head office at ○○-ri, which has been located in the ○○-si before the wife moves the head office). The Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 2.787 billion in total from the supply price of ○○ Environmental Resources, ○○ Non-Iron Metal (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Non-Iron Metal”), 2010, and 201 in the taxable period of value-added tax in 2010 and 2011, and filed a return on value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

B. However, the Defendant issued a tax invoice on December 15, 201 under Articles 16(1), 17(2)2, and 21(1)3, etc. of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “Value-Added Tax Act”) to the Plaintiff on December 15, 201, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff did not trade in accordance with its own account and responsibility; and (b) the closed-shaped weight (closed weights) entered according to the Plaintiff’s instructions, which constitutes a false tax invoice; and (c) the Defendant imposed value-added tax amount of KRW 000 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2010 and value-added tax for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2011 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff confirmed the site prior to the commencement of the transaction and kept evidentiary materials, such as the tax invoice and the statement of transactions, etc. for each transaction, at all times so as not to be disadvantaged due to the tax evasion of the secondhand shop, which is the customer. The transaction between the Plaintiff and the purchaser of this case is also a transaction actually conducted, and all the tax invoices related thereto are consistent with the facts. Nevertheless, the disposition of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The distribution structure of non-ferrous metals is located at the highest floor of a large manufacturer that manufactures and sells products through the refining process, and the companies collecting non-metallic metals below and returning them form classes in the form of target, serious injury, cattle, etc. depending on their respective scale. The Plaintiff was supplied by approximately 20 companies including the instant purchasing agencies.

2) As between December 2010 and February 201, the Plaintiff confirmed the intention to supply the waste agreement only or between ○○○○, ○○○, the representative of ○ non-ferrous metal, and ○○○○, the representative of ○○○○○○, etc., and received a delivery letter accompanied by a business registration certificate, a copy of a settlement account, a copy of a passbook, a personal seal impression certificate, a corporation or a personal seal impression, a photograph and lease contract of a corporation or a custodian, a representative’s resident registration certificate, etc., and began the waste transport transaction after directly visiting each place of business to verify whether the business was actually operated.

(3) The Plaintiff’s registration number, name, and the Plaintiff’s registration number, value of supply, and added value of the purchaser, who is a business entity that supplies the waste Dong whenever it is supplied.

A tax invoice stating the amount, date of preparation, items, quantity, price, etc. of the goods supplied is issued.

4) In addition, the Plaintiff prepared or delivered a transaction statement stating the volume, unit price, supply price, value-added tax, etc. of the waste transport vehicle, the registration number of the vehicle transporting the waste Dong, the transaction date, the measurement time, the vehicle and the weight of the waste agreement, etc., a measurement certificate and a measurement confirmation document prepared by the transport engineer, and the price for supply to the waste transport was paid from the Plaintiff’s bank account to each settlement account of the purchaser of this case.

5) Meanwhile, among the purchasing places of this case, the ○ non-ferrous metal and the ○○○○ commercial person are delinquent in paying the value-added tax for a year 201, and the Ma○○ and Jin○, a representative of each ○○, issued a tax invoice falsely and accused of the fact that the tax invoice was issued. In addition, the purchasing places of this case reported that ○○○○○○, operated by ○○○○○, ○○○○, operated by ○○○, ○○○○○ operated by ○○, ○○○○○○ operated by ○○○, ○○○○○○○, operated by ○○○○○○, operated by ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○ operated by ○○○○ (hereinafter collectively referred to as “all pre-stage purchasing places

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4 through 7, Gap evidence 16 through 21, Eul evidence 7, 10, 15 (including each number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods as taxable subject to value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-stage transaction tax, "the delivery or transfer of goods" includes all underlying acts of transferring the right to use or consume the goods, regardless of the actual profit gained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001). In such a case, the issue of whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods as provided for in the Value-Added Tax Act is determined by comprehensively taking account of the purpose and circumstances of each transaction, the ownership of profits, and the payment relationship between the parties to the transaction, and the taxation authority's imposition of tax invoices under Article 28(2)6 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

6. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ○○○○○○○○’s purchase of the instant tax invoice was not based on the Plaintiff’s actual purchase of the instant tax invoice, and that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s purchase of the instant tax invoice was merely based on the fact that ○○○○○○○○’s purchase of the instant tax invoice and the Plaintiff’s actual purchase of the instant tax invoice, and that ○○○○○○○○○○○’s purchase of the instant tax invoice was not based on the fact that ○○○○○○’s purchase of the instant tax invoice was not based on the fact that ○○○○○○○○’s purchase of the instant tax invoice and the instant tax invoice was not based on the fact that ○○○○○○○’s purchase of the instant tax invoice and the instant tax invoice were not based on the fact that ○○○’s actual purchase of the instant tax invoice and the Plaintiff’s actual purchase of the instant tax invoice, but that she did not have any reasonable basis for the Plaintiff’s consent to purchase.

3. Conclusion

All of the plaintiff's claims are accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.