early 2012 Jeon 4256 ( December 05, 2012)

No good faith or negligence may be recognized on a tax invoice different from the fact that the plaintiff received.

As long as the Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was engaged in the transaction by lending the name of the transaction partner, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff was unaware of, or was negligent in, the fact that the instant tax invoice was prepared differently from the fact.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap965 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AA

The Director of the National Tax Service

July 24, 2013

September 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of July 2, 2012 imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on July 2, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a special metal manufacturing business under the trade name of OO-gu O-dong 37 to BBB.

B. The Plaintiff reported the value-added tax to the Defendant, including the purchase tax amount to be deducted (the purchase tax invoice issued in the name ofCCD), which was issued by NonpartyCC (representative DD) during the first VAT taxable period in 2009 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).” and “C. The Defendant denied the relevant input tax deduction against the Plaintiff on July 2, 2012, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was written differently from the fact, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the KRW OOOOO on the first taxable period in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on September 28, 2012, but was dismissed on December 5, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The whole purport of the argument in the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (if available, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff wired the purchase price after being supplied with closed scke from the actual operator EE of theCC, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice. Even if the instant tax invoice falls under a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trader, and the Plaintiff is subject to an input tax deduction based on the instant tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition that did not deduct it is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 7(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax amounts in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and that the phrase that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts refers to cases where the requisite entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person who actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, and the price and time of the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec.

In this regard, the tax invoice of this case is prepared differently from the fact, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's assertion that the tax invoice of this case is not a false tax invoice, and that the plaintiff purchased waste scooby, etc. from E, not DD as the issuer of the tax invoice of this case, and that the tax invoice of this case is prepared differently from the fact, and that even if DD and EE are the actual business owner of E as the father between DD and EE, the tax invoice of this case was issued in the name of D, so long as the tax invoice of this case that the plaintiff purchased and received waste scooby, etc. from E is not EE, it is not different from the fact that the tax invoice of this case was prepared differently. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who alleged the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was bona fide or mistakenly aware of the fact that the tax invoice was prepared in the name of DD, as long as the EE had been operated under the name of DD as it had already been known to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the tax invoice was prepared in the name of DD, and that the first-party Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

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.