Cho Jae-chul2012 Before 2251 ( November 19, 2012)

The transaction is deemed to be a false tax invoice, but the good faith and without fault are recognized.

In light of the fact that considerable efforts have been made to confirm the actual business of the customer at the time of the commencement of the transaction, the Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault are recognized in light of the fact that the supplier was confirmed at each time of acceptance, the transport vehicle was screened and supervised, and there was no data to presume that the unit price of the waste agreement provided is significantly low.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap265 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AAM Co., Ltd.

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 20, 2013

August 29, 2013

1. On April 1, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of the value-added tax No. 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On October 17, 2008, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of the same refining business (at the time of its establishment, the location of the headquarters was 'O-dong 450-2'). On December 2008, OO-gun 650-3, which is the seat of the headquarters, started the construction of a new factory and completed the construction of a new factory on June 22, 2009, and then moved its headquarters to another place on June 22, 2009, and the same refining business from July 2009 [the business of producing the waste copper scrap as a raw material and supplying electric wires to the company].

B. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “CCC”, received 60 copies of tax invoices equivalent to the sum of supply values of OOOO(hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”) from KimD who registered business of non-ferrous and scrap metal retail in the first taxable period of value added tax in 2010, and reported and paid the first taxable value added tax in 2010 to the Defendant by deducting the input tax amount under each of the tax invoices of this case from the output tax amount, and deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. However, the director of the regional tax office of OO has conducted an investigation into a suspected person on data about KimD (CCC), conducted an investigation into the transaction order with the plaintiff on the charge of receiving the processed tax invoice, and notified the plaintiff that each of the tax invoices of this case received from KimD (CCC) in the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2010 constituted a false tax invoice, and accordingly, the defendant denied the deduction of the input tax amount on the ground that the transaction between the plaintiff and KimD (CCC) was processed, and notified the plaintiff of the decision of correction on April 1, 2012 on the ground that each of the tax invoices of this case was a false tax invoice. (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, and the purport of the whole pleadings described in Gap evidence 1 through Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, as indicated in each of the instant tax invoices, was actually supplied by KimD (CCC), and each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice.

2) Even if KimD (CC)’s data constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts, and the Plaintiff was confirmed whether KimD (CCC) actually engaged in closed-end trade, through visiting the place of business, verification of business registration, etc. before the commencement of the transaction with KimD (CCC), and through strict tally examination process, it was confirmed that the relevant closed-dong was actually supplied from KimD (CCC), and that the relevant closed-dong was stored with the evidentiary data, the identification of the transport vehicle, the identification of the measurement certificate, and the transaction statement, and the accurate transfer of the transaction price to the account opened in the name of KimD (CCC). The Plaintiff did not know and did not know that KimD (CCC) was not an actual supplier.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) In the same industry that uses waste Dongs as raw materials, three companies, including EE (Establishment on November 9, 2006, and sales OOOOO in 201), FMM Industry Co., Ltd. (Establishment on July 4, 2006, and OOOOO in 201) and Plaintiff (Establishment on October 17, 2008, and sales OOOOO in 201) are higher than the highest sales.

2) All circumstances related to the suspicions of data from KimD (CCC)

A) Since the crime of forging official document, KimD had been committed for four years in the past, and was released from prison, around ten months after the date of release from prison, on June 24, 2009, the name "CCC" was registered as a non-ferrous and scrap metal retail business operator, and there was no experience in the previous industry related to non-metallic metals or waste metal.

B) The location of the “CCC” was at the time of the commencement of the operation, and at the time of the operation, 'O-Gu O-dong 259-1' was changed to 'O-dong 259-2' around October 12, 2009, and later 'O-Gu O-dong 599-2' was changed to 'O-house 599-2' around March 31, 2010 (as a result of checking the status of the last place of business at the time of the investigation of the suspected criminal suspect on GlaD (CC), there was an office prepared as a mobile container on the ground of 400 square meters and a high iron collection and parking lot, etc.

C) In reporting the first value-added tax in 2010, KimD (CC) reported the sales amount to approximately KRW OOOO, and the purchase amount to approximately KRW OOOOO (for the second value-added tax period in 2009, sales amount was reported to approximately KRW OOOO, and approximately KRW OOOO in purchase amount). Of the above purchase amount, the value-added tax payable by KimD (CCC) for the first time in 2010 on the materials for constructive purchase of waste resources for which there is no supplier’s personal information, etc. does not constitute an input tax amount, and eventually, the value-added tax that is payable by KimD (CCC) for the first time in 2010 on September 10, 2010. On the other hand, the above sales amount includes the Plaintiff (the total supply value equivalent to KRW OOOOE corporation and the total purchase value equivalent to the aggregate supply value of KRW OOE (OFOM) corporation and the total supply value equivalent to the total supply value.

D) KimDD (CC) has withdrawn in cash immediately after the receipt of most of the transaction amounts, including the transaction amounts remitted by the Plaintiff, and the source of the cash so withdrawn was not revealed.

E) From January 14, 2011 to May 24, 2011, the director of the regional tax office determined that: (a) a suspected person’s investigation (the period subject to investigation: the period from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010) was conducted with respect to KimD (CC); and (b) KimD (CCC) a purchase tax invoice equivalent to approximately KRW 00 of the supply value issued in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, which was received in relation to the purchase of approximately KRW 00 OOOOO (C) from ChoG (HH); (c) a purchase tax invoice equivalent to the supply value of approximately 00 won, and (d) a purchase tax invoice equivalent to the purchase of approximately 0OOOO Kim from JG (JM) was all issued with the head of each regional tax office having received the tax invoice equivalent to the purchase of approximately 2D from each right II (JMM), and all of them were received without any false data.

F) While there was almost little amount of funds owned by KimD at the time of opening the business, it is argued that it raised approximately KRW OOO of the opening of the business by either receiving a loan or borrowing from a person (at the time of opening the business, KimD had failed to pay debts to financial institutions equivalent to approximately OOOwons), and that it did not disclose the purchasing place while carrying out the business ethics of the non- iron and scrap metal industry.

G) Meanwhile, on July 19, 2010, KimD reported to the police that it was stolen of documents related to purchase and sales, etc. kept in the workplace, and applied for the extension of the first fixed value-added tax return deadline for the year 2010 to the head of the OO on July 20, 2010 by October 25, 2010. However, the results of the investigation revealed that it was false report for the extension of the deadline for filing the value-added tax return, which was arrested under suspicion of interference with the execution of fraudulent means and was investigated.

3) Circumstances relating to the closed transaction between the Plaintiff and KimD (CCC)

A) On July 6, 2009, immediately after commencement of the transaction with KimD (CCC) on July 6, 2009, the Plaintiff visited each place of business of KimD (CCC) on November 26, 2009, and confirmed the night strings required for closed operation transactions, moorings, and transport trucks and other facilities and night strings, and recorded the photographs, and issued the registration certificate of KimD (CC on October 16, 2009) (OOOOOO name) and the certificate of personal seal impression (OOO name on November 25, 2009), and issued a quarterly certificate to the Plaintiff with respect to the occurrence of any transaction with the head of Tong (CC), the head of Tong (C) in the name of the head of Tong, the obligation to report and pay value-added taxes in the course of transaction with the Plaintiff.

B) From November 25, 2009 to April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired an closed Dong that KimD (CCC) is a supplier (each of the instant tax invoices issued from KimD (CCC) in an amount equivalent to the total value of supply for the part traded in the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2010, and the tax invoice related to the part traded during the previous taxable period was not included in the instant disposition grounds) from KimD (the part that was received for the transaction during the previous taxable period is not included in the previous taxable period). When taking over the closed Dong, the Plaintiff was sent a detailed statement of the total amount of supply for the transaction by mail after taking the end of the vehicle and taking the vehicle into account the closed Dong, and the certificate of measurement (the vehicle number, the name of the supplier, and the mobile phone number are indicated as the number of the carrier, and the transport engineer name and the mobile phone number are indicated on the lower part).

Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6 through 12, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 18 through 81, and Eul evidence 2 through Eul evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice

A) In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction constitutes a “unlawful tax invoice” under Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201) on the ground that it is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). However, if the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts, and if there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs is liable to pay taxes, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the tax invoice shall be different from those in which the goods or services are supplied by the parties to the transaction, such as the goods or services, and the person who actually supplies the goods or services are different from those in the name of the parties to which it is supplied (see, 16.

In addition, in general, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements is a taxable person, but in cases where it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the course of specific litigation, the other party cannot be readily concluded to be an unlawful disposition against which the taxation requirements are incomplete, unless it proves that the other party is inappropriate to apply the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).

B) In this case, there is considerable doubt as to whether KimD, which had not been engaged in the previous non-ferrous metal or waste-related industry, was capable of operating the "CCC" as well as its opening funds for several months after release. ② KimD (CC) has withdrawn most of its cash immediately after receiving transaction funds from its business partners, including the Plaintiff, and refused to identify its use in normal form, and ③ KimD (CCC) intentionally did not provide evidence related to the purchase and sale of the above 0OOO in the first taxable period of the Value-Added Tax for the first time of the year 2010, asserting that there was no experience in working in the previous industry, and that it was not sufficient for the plaintiff to actually operate the "CCC".

C) Ultimately, the actual discontinuance of the vehicle is considered to be a third party, not KimD (CCC), and each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a false tax invoice that is different from the fact that the supplier makes a false entry. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

ii)whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and without fault

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the name of the tax invoice, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and that the person who received the tax was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28,

B) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by considering the facts acknowledged in the instant case as a whole, and the purport of the entire arguments are as follows. ① The Plaintiff visited the place of business of KimD (CCC) at the time of commencement of the transaction with KimD (CCC), taken the site photographs, and issued a copy of passbook in the name of business registration certificate, KimD (CCC), and a certificate of personal seal impression that the Plaintiff would accurately report and pay the value-added tax generated in the course of the transaction with the Plaintiff, and submit the quarterly proof of tax payment to the Plaintiff, etc., at the time of commencement of the transaction, the Plaintiff appears to have paid considerable effort to verify whether KimD (CCC) is operating the normal closed-end trading business, and ② the Plaintiff would have not been aware of the fact that KimD (CCC) is not a supplier at the time of the transaction, and the Plaintiff would not have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff would not have been aware of the fact that the supplier would have been using the same route in the name of the supplier at issue.

C) Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

If so, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.