the fact that it cannot be deemed that an actual transaction was made, and thus constitutes a false tax invoice.

Since it is reasonable to deem that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff and its clients have actually supplied or supplied copper rap, it shall constitute a tax invoice written differently from the fact, and it shall not be deemed that the Plaintiff is a party to good faith and without fault merely because the Plaintiff claims

Article 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Additional Tax)

2015Guhap1018 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○○ Construction Business Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 23, 2016

July 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s value-added tax amounting to KRW 000,000,000 for the second year of 2013 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014 (Additional tax)

(including) revoke the disposition of imposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, which was established on March 20, 1990, operated construction machinery branch entry management in ○○○-dong 11-9 ○○-dong 11-9 ○tel, and changed its main business to a non-ferrous distribution business around November 2013.

B. In the 2013 Value-Added Tax period, the Plaintiff purchased ice from the purchasing trader listed in [Attachment 1] column, and received the purchase tax invoice listed in [Attachment 1] column (hereinafter "purchase tax invoice of this case"). During the same period, the Plaintiff was called the sales trader listed in [Attachment 2] column. The Plaintiff sold ice rap in the 2013 transaction place after adding the purchase and sales transaction of this case to the 2013 transaction place (hereinafter "the transaction of this case" and each of the above transaction was called "the transaction of this case"). The Plaintiff filed a sales tax invoice listed in [Attachment 2] column (hereinafter "the sales tax invoice of this case") and issued each of the tax invoices listed in the 2013 transaction places, and deducted the above value-added tax amount from the sales tax amount for the above taxable period and reported and paid the above sales amount.

C. From July 8, 2014 to September 30, 2014, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to trade order with the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the investigation data that the Plaintiff purchased and delivered the instant purchase tax invoice and the instant sales invoice in which the Plaintiff received approximately KRW 2.59 million of the supply price from the instant purchase transaction office, and KRW 2.613 billion of the supply price to the instant sales office.

D. Upon receipt of the above notification, the Defendant denied KRW 2,590,338,00 in total of the input tax amount related to the purchase tax invoice of the instant case and KRW 2,613,040,000 in total of the output tax amount related to the sales tax invoice of the instant case, and issued a correction and notification to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014, of KRW 200,000,000 (additional tax due to the failure to enter the tax invoice) for the second period of value added tax in 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 25, 2015.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, as indicated in the instant tax invoice, purchased or sold rap from the transaction partner of the instant case and actually supplied the goods. Thus, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the transaction partner of the instant case was a disguised business operator (a disguised business operator or a signboard business operator), the Plaintiff fulfilled his duty of care as a transaction partner by checking the business registration certificate, tax payment completion certificate, financial statements, etc. of the instant transaction partner, and through the prescribed examination process even in the course of supplying or supplying old traps. The Plaintiff was not aware that the transaction partner of the instant case was a disguised business operator, and was not negligent in not knowing such circumstances.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The instant transaction entered into a successive contract with respect to copper crap as follows:

2) Plaintiff’s workplace, etc.

The Plaintiff established a workplace as 11-9, ○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 11-9, and established a storage in ○○-Myeon 97-4, and concluded a lease contract with respect to the said storage on November 7, 2013. In the Plaintiff’s above Seoul office, the actual representative Kim○-○ (at that time, the representative director was the wife of Kim○-○, but the representative director was changed to Kim○-○ on June 5, 2015), the division of distribution, and the representative Kim Jong-young worked for the company, and the management affairs, such as receipt and issuance of electronic tax invoices related to the management of the existing branch and non-metallic metals wholesale, and the fund transfer, were conducted. The Plaintiff’s above ○○○○-si, a business employee employed for the Pccoon-related business, and the low measurement was not conducted from around 2013 to 201, and did not use it in relation to the aforementioned transaction or at least 301.

3) Regarding the Plaintiff’s representative Kim ○○

○○○ is a shareholder who owns 91.25% of the Plaintiff’s shares, and is a real representative who instructs the issuance of contracts and tax invoices, and makes decisions.

On November 1, 2013, 2013, the ○○○○○○, and the new ○○○○○, entered into a contract for the distribution business of copper Bab, the Plaintiff and the mutual name of the Plaintiff have operated the '○○ Construction Business' of the same intervention enterprise as the Plaintiff since 1987, and there was only history such as accommodation facilities, inn and real estate rental business, and there was no history of engaging in the business related to scrap and non-performance, or engaged in the same business.

○○ Kim-○ had no record of engaging in the type of business related to scrap iron and scrap metal, thereby employing new ○○ and Lee ○○ as an employee engaged in the business related to scrap metal. The details purchased and sold by new ○○ and Lee ○○ was issued and the management of funds transfer, operating profits, etc. was conducted by Kim○-○○ and Kim ○○, etc. under the direction of the Seoul office.

4) As to the person in charge of the instant transaction

In using the name of the head of the Plaintiff’s non-ferrous metal business department, new ○○○○ is responsible for the receipt and delivery of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice related to the closed-end transaction with the purchaser and the seller of the Plaintiff, using the name of the head of the non-ferrous metal business department (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Metal”), the LO○ Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Metal”), the LO○ Advertising Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○”), the LO○○ Industries, the LO○ Industries (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Industries”), the LO○ Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SO”), and introducing the LO○○ Co., Ltd. in charge of receipt and delivery of the tax invoice related to the closed-end transaction with the new ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SO”).

On the other hand, as the former representative of △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○○”) was accused of having received false tax invoices and issued them when investigating closed-dong transactions between July 16, 2012 and June 30, 2013. At the time of investigating closed-dong transactions between △△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the former representative of △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the former representative of △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was accused of having received false tax invoices and issued them.

5) As to the purchaser of the instant case

A) ○ metal (19, 2001 million won)

① ○ metal was opened on July 10, 2013 and closed on December 31, 2013.

② As a result of surveying ○ Metal on the transaction in the second taxable period in 2013, the Incheon Tax Office filed an accusation by determining the sales and purchase as the total processing.

③ At the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff’s table of ○ metal’s ○○M, which was presented as documentary evidence of transaction, was located near the world (at the same time, even if the Plaintiff arrived at 10 minutes after the Plaintiff’s extension from the Incheon, or the same date arrives at Incheon and the Silung City at the same time), there was no difference in weight of 1 ton, mutual error, or there was no fault of each type of waste consent (A Dong, Dong, cand, cand, waved).

④ At the time of the tax investigation, the photographs presented by the Plaintiff as the evidence of transaction had no photographs directly related to ○ metal.

⑤ On July 2013 to September 201 of the same year, the ○○○, the representative of ○ metal, purchased waste Dong, etc. from ○○ Resources at the time of the tax investigation. From around October of the same year, the purchasing party, etc. stated that all cash transactions were made and no relevant documents were made. The sales amount was deposited in cash after receiving cash transfer to the account, and the sales amount was closed without paying taxes after filing a return on the sales amount without paying taxes.

B) ○ industry (six cases, 404 million won)

① The ○ industry was opened on July 5, 2013 and closed on January 31, 2014.

② As a result of surveying the ○ industry on the transaction during the second taxable period in February 2013, a military tax office filed an accusation by determining the total sales and purchase as the processing.

③ The place of business of the ○○ Industry uses “○○○○○-dong 155-13” or “○○○-dong 101-17” as a storage, and the said storage has filed an accusation against the KO○-dong ○○○-dong 155-13 at the North Incheon National Tax Office, where the ○○-dong ○○-dong 103,000,000, was a place where the ○○-dong 101-17,000,000,0000,000

④ The data submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the tax investigation did not include the title table of the ○○ Industry. The pictures submitted by the Plaintiff were the pictures of ○○○ Industries, a seller, and were not related to the ○ Industry. The sales amount was deposited in cash after being transferred to the account. The sales amount was all deposited after being transferred to the account, and the sales amount was reported only without the purchase price return and closed without paying taxes.

C) △ Metal (two cases, 185 million won);

① On June 26, 2013, insurance metals started and closed on December 31, 2014.

② During the investigation, △○○○○○○○○○○○○,” the representative of ○○○○○○, asserted that the transaction with the Plaintiff was a real transaction at the time of the tax investigation, but did not submit evidence at all. At the time of the tax investigation, the tax official visited the place of business on August 20, 2014, and the electricity fee was unpaid for three months and affixed a short notice.

③ ○○○, who works in △ Metal, was accused of the actual actors of the closed data transactions in △○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and was indicted on July 23, 2014 at the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office. ○○ Trade, which was the purchaser of △ Metal, was accused of the sales without purchase, as a wide-scale carbon company.

④ When the Plaintiff transfers the purchase price to △ Metal, △ Metal immediately remitted it to ○ Trade (Representative Han-○). The representative of ○ Trade was paid in cash immediately after the deposit.

⑤ The representative head of ○○○○ was a trade of KRW 9.6 billion in six months, starting on June 26, 2013, even though he did not have any business experience related to the waste operation.

6) As to the sales office of this case

A) ○○ Track (21 case, 2035 million won)

① The crowdfunding started on January 14, 2013, but closed on December 31, 2013.

② ○○ Trading was confirmed to have purchased 37.5 billion won in the data investigation conducted by the Seoul Regional Tax Office on the portion reported at 1st and 2nd and 2nd, 2013.

③ The Plaintiff purchased 1.5 billion won from ○ Metal, 1.6 billion won, and 6.4 billion won from ○○ Industry, and issued sales tax invoices by issuing them to ○○ Trading.

B) △ Metal (three cases, 296 million won)

① An accusation was filed by the tax authorities on the first transaction in 2012 due to the receipt of a false tax invoice.

② The Plaintiff purchased three 300 million waste Dongs from ○ Metal, and issued a tax invoice to supply it to △ Metal.

C) Mag-si (three cases, 282 million won)

① On November 2, 2012, 199, △△△ was suspended on August 19, 2015.

② The place of business of Magdong-gu is “○○-dong 1373-6, ○-dong 1373-6,” which is the representative of Magdong-si, and the former ○○, the representative of Magdong-gu, is the former ○○

③ The Plaintiff purchased 200 million won from ○ Metal and 100 million won from ○ Metal, and issued a tax invoice to supply it to △○○○○.

6) The Plaintiff’s actual representative, Kim ○, the Plaintiff’s real representative, stated in the tax investigation as follows.

▪매입처인 ○○금속과는 일면식도 없다. ○○금속을 알고 거래한 것이 아니라, 신○○이 그곳에서 물건을 산다고 하여 사업자등록증, 통장사본, 기타 받을 수 있는 서류를 요구하였다. 재무제표를 요구하니까 창업한지 얼마 안되어 없다고 하였고, 납세완납증명서 역시 창업한지 얼마 안되어 없다고 하였다. 우리가 물건을 사서 돈을 주는 입장이므로 그냥 거래하였다. ○○금속에서 폐동을 매입할 때 누구와 연락하고 거래하는 것은 잘 모르고 신○○과 이○○가 알아서 한다. 폐동 가격이 싸든, 비싸든 관계 없이 매입, 매출의 거래차액으로 0.7%를 남기고 거래한다.

▪매입처인 ○○산업, □□금속과도 알고 거래한 것이 아니라, 모든 거래는 신○○이 알아서 한 것이다.

▪매출처인 ○○트레이딩도 신○○, 이○○가 알아서 거래한 것이다. 원고 사무실에서는 주도적으로 할 만한 능력이 없다.

7) The tax authority conducted a tax investigation on ○○ Metal, ○ Industries, and △ Metal, which is the purchaser of the instant case, and issued a false tax invoice to correct and notify the value-added tax upon issuance of the false tax invoice. Nevertheless, the purchaser of the instant case did not proceed with the appeal procedure seeking the revocation of the said disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul's Evidence Nos. 4, 6, 14 through 16, 36 through 38 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

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

A) Article 39(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12167, Jan. 11, 2014; hereinafter “Value-Added Tax Act”) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries in a tax invoice are different from the facts. Here, the meaning that the entries in a tax invoice differs from the facts. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act, or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is nominal, and there is a person to whom such ownership actually belongs, the person to whom such entry in a tax invoice belongs shall be a tax obligor and the tax obligor shall be subject to the application of tax law, irrespective of the formal entries in a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

In addition, in general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax imposition, but if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts were not eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du6568, Sept. 24, 2009).

B) In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 28 through 35 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was actually supplied or supplied with the transaction partner as stated in the tax invoice of this case, and therefore, the tax invoice of this case constitutes "tax invoice entered differently from the facts."

① In light of the above career experience, the transaction partner of the instant case appears to be incapable of operating the copper traps sales business, and the transaction partner of the instant case has discontinued its business since most of them were identified as data and had registered its business. Thus, the transaction partner of the instant case did not pay value-added tax of a considerable amount.

(2) On the contrary, the purchaser of this case only did not report purchase to the tax authority at the time of issuing the tax invoice of this case or did not report purchase too small compared to that at the time of issuing the tax invoice of this case, its sales reaches a considerable amount.

③ The purchaser of the instant case immediately withdraws the amount from the Plaintiff in cash when it is deposited. It is difficult to readily understand that the company operating the instant business voluntarily withdraws the total amount of the revenue deposited in the transaction account in cash.

④ New○○, who is a person in charge of the instant transaction, was accused of the receipt and the suspicion of issuance of a false tax invoice, and a considerable number of representatives of the instant transaction partners were accused of the charge.

⑤ At the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff submitted the purchaser’s title table, the seller’s title table, the measurement table, the specifications of transaction, the cargo vehicle photograph, etc. with the explanatory material called the normal transaction. However, although an authorized purchase certification business establishment (a certified measuring and measuring business establishment, ○○○○ Dong, 187-5), which is the seller, should have the difference between the officially measured time and the measured time of transaction in remote areas, the difference between the measured time and the measured time of the transported vehicle, is at least the time of the vehicle transport, it is confirmed that the difference between the measured time and the measured time of transaction is within the measured time of the vehicle transport (Article 28-1 through 6, subparagraph 7 of the evidence), it is difficult to view it as the normal transaction (Article 28-1 through 6, subparagraph 7 of the evidence).

④ The Plaintiff’s ○ metal relay table purchased on December 2, 2013 entered ○○ Metal’s ○○ Metal’s (Evidence No. 29), which is not the Plaintiff, in the net weight 16,220 kilograms on December 2, 2013, in the ○ metal relay table of the Plaintiff, but at the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff submitted the ○○ Metal’s certificate at the place of business, 15,210 kilograms with the net weight 15,210 kilograms (Evidence No. 31), and on December 3202 on December 32, 2013, the ○ metal relay table at the time of the tax investigation at the place of business (Evidence No. 32), there was no difference between the actual weight 17,00 kilograms and the ○ Metal’s certificate at the time of the instant tax investigation at the place of business (Evidence No. 32).

7) The purchaser of this case did not proceed with the procedure of objection seeking the revocation of the disposition, even though the tax authorities received the notice of correction and notification of value-added tax on the ground that it received false tax invoices. It seems that the purchaser of this case is all satisfied the above disposition.

8) Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff submitted evidence of the existence of the transaction with the instant transaction partner and the statement of accounts, it is merely nothing more than a report document indicating the past fact that the Plaintiff supplied or received a certain quantity of old traps as stated in the instant tax invoice, as well as the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.) to the instant transaction partner, and the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc., the prosecution made a disposition “non-suspect of suspicion on the ground of the lack of evidence” (Evidence No. 6-1). However, such circumstance is merely a mere fact that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the criminal facts of the instant accusation case. Thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s ground for the existence of such data or circumstance does not prove that the Plaintiff supplied or received old traps as stated in the instant tax invoice with the instant transaction partner.

2) Whether the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence are recognized

In a case where an entrepreneur and a supplier on a tax invoice receive a different 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 fact of misrepresentation in his/her name and failure to know it, the input tax amount can be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527, Jul. 25, 2013). However, such legal doctrine is based on the premise that the actual supplier and the supplier are another nominal stolen transaction, but it is not applicable to a processed transaction without real transaction.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have engaged in real transactions. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, which appears to be premised on the fact that the Plaintiff was a nominal stolen transaction, is without merit without any further review.

Considering that the Plaintiff’s domestic transaction constitutes a nominal transaction, the Plaintiff’s most of the transaction partners of the instant case is a business proprietor immediately before the transaction with the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence of confirmation as to the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s transaction or the representative of each transaction partner. ② The Plaintiff made a transaction with the instant transaction partner in around 2013, and there was a considerable number of cases where the transaction period was concentrated or the number of transactions was less than the short period, and it is difficult to view it as a normal transaction method. ③ Although the Plaintiff submitted the guidance, the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, photographs, etc. on the basis of the actual transaction with the instant transaction partner, the Plaintiff merely submitted the report document, and the business registration certificate was merely issued to the head of the competent tax office to identify the facts and secure taxation data of value-added tax, etc. The Plaintiff’s mere certificate of business fact is merely a certificate of business, and it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s actual transaction without the consent of the head of the competent tax office or its actual transaction without the consent of the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20036.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and constitutes a processing transaction, not an actual transaction, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition based on the same premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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

section 3.