Early High Court Decision 201J 0735 ( October 22, 2011)

The instant tax invoice is a tax invoice entered differently from the fact by the vehicle supplier.

The Plaintiff’s automobile manufacturer suspended the sale of a new car to a middle-sized exporter, such as the Plaintiff, purchased a new car under the name of the purchaser of the instant vehicle and exported it. It is difficult to view that the purchaser of the instant vehicle actually purchased the vehicle and supplied it to the Plaintiff, and therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice written differently from

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap12819 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAtech Co., Ltd.

Head of Sungnam Tax Office

August 10, 2012

September 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On January 13, 2011, the Defendant revoked each imposition of the first value-added tax of 200 won and the second value-added tax of 000 won against the Plaintiff in 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a used vehicle exporter, from March 12, 2010 to September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased 73 vehicles from a total of 197 companies including 7 rental car companies (hereinafter “the instant purchaser”), and exported them, and received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 000 and KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) for the first and second taxable periods of value-added tax, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount therefrom.

B. The Defendant, when the Plaintiff was unable to purchase a new car for the Plaintiff’s use from the manufacturer of the instant vehicle, and the Plaintiff purchased a new car under the name of the purchaser of the instant vehicle, and conducted a disguised purchase of the used car from the said customer. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, and the pertinent input tax amount was not deducted on January 13, 201, and was corrected and notified to the Plaintiff on January 13, 201, KRW 00 of value-added tax for the first period of 10 and KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second period of 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 11, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on August 22, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 4 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff actually purchased and exported 73 vehicles from the purchaser of this case, it was unlawful for the Defendant to regard the tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice and deduct the input tax amount as a false tax invoice, and to impose value-added tax.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts refers to a case where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with those in the actual supplier, value, and timing of the supplier, who actually supplies or receives the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Furthermore, a supplier and a supplier under the tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of, and was not negligent in, the fact that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing of, the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the purchaser was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

(2) If the purpose of the entire pleadings is added to the entry in the instant evidence 89, the evidence 4, 5, 8, 8, 9, and 10, and 90 evidence 2, and evidence 2 through 4, both of which are returned to the instant case, the following circumstances are revealed:

① Domestic automobile manufacturers strictly prohibit exporters of used cars such as the Plaintiff from purchasing new cars for the purpose of export.

② In fact, the Plaintiff purchased and used the vehicle from the purchaser of the instant case, including the completion of the export declaration within several days after most of the vehicles were released from the manufacturer of the instant vehicle, and the completion of the export of the vehicle before the registration of the vehicle in the vehicle register was made in the name of the purchaser.

③ As a result of the investigation into the Sungnam Tax Treaty, most of the purchasing parties of the instant case opened the instant taxable period in 2010, and closed down a short term without any particular transaction record with the Plaintiff, or failed to report the transaction details with the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff was subject to ex officio closure from the competent tax office, and some of the rental car companies were subject to revocation of the registration of the car rental business by falsely registering the vehicle as if it satisfies the vehicle holding requirements.

④ The financial transaction of the purchase price was abnormal because part of the purchase price of the vehicle was paid to the automobile manufacturer or a third party’s account other than the instant purchase price, or that was paid to the account of the instant purchase headquarters was returned to the account of KimG (a minor child of the Plaintiff Company, Kim HH) or Kim II that played the role of arranging the purchase of the vehicle.

⑤ Since the Plaintiff exported a vehicle at a price lower than the purchase price of the vehicle, it is a structure in which profit cannot be raised unless the value-added tax on the purchase price is refundable.

⑥ 원고의 대표자인 임JJ은 세무조사 당시 '주로 김II의 알선을 통하여 이 사건 매입처와 거래를 시작하였고， 매입처의 소재지 등 자세한 내역은 알지 못한다'는 취지로 진술하였고， 이 사건 매입처 중 하나인 주식회사 KKK의 대표자 LLL， 주식회사 MMM모터스의 대표자 김NNN， PPP오토 주식회사의 대표자 오QQQ， 주식회사 RR렌트카를 실제로 운영한 박SS 등은 경찰에서 '원고측이 차량대금을 납부할 테니 회사 명의로 신차를 구입해 달라는 부탁을 받아 차량 구입 명의를 빌려주고 수수료를 받았다'는 취지로 진술하였다.

(3) Comprehensively examining the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff purchased and exported the instant vehicle by lending the name of the purchaser in the name of the Plaintiff when the vehicle manufacturer discontinued the pre-sale of the instant vehicle to a middle-sized exporter, and it is difficult to view that the instant purchasing entity actually purchased and supplied the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice stating the supplier on the facts and month, which constitutes a tax invoice stating the supplier differently from the facts under Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the Plaintiff who led the same transaction cannot be deemed as a good faith and negligence. Accordingly, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax without deducting the input tax amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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