Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice or not.

Since it is recognized that the director of the plaintiff's business division was convicted of the crime that received a false tax invoice, the plaintiff's claim against this is groundless.

Articles 16 and 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2014Guhap20736 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

November 21, 2014

December 26, 2014

1. The plaintiff's request shall be made.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2012 against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2013 (1,00,389,910) and value-added tax for the second term of 2012 shall be revoked in entirety.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff has its head office 42 and 301, which is a corporation operating steel and steel products wholesale and retail business, etc., and has a branch office in Busan DDA E-dong 947-4, Busan E-dong.

B. From March 201, 201X to June 201, the Plaintiff’s business office received a tax invoice of KRW 0,000,000,000,000 from FFF in aggregate of the supply value from FFF in return for the first year of 201 X, and deducted it as the input tax amount. From July 201, to December 201, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 00,000,000 in aggregate of the supply value from FFF in total, from the supply value of GGGGGGG from March 201 to June 201, and filed a tax invoice of KRW 0,00,00 in total,00 (hereinafter the Plaintiff received from FFF and GGGGGGG from March 3, 201 to December 201, and deducted it as the input tax amount in return for the second year of 201 X.

C. The Director of the Busan Regional Tax Office, through an investigation into the Plaintiff’s Busan Busan District Tax Office, accused the relevant persons, including the Plaintiff’s employees EH, for suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and notified the Defendant of relevant taxation data.

D. On September 11, 201 J. 201, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 0,000,000,000 for the first quarter of 201 X and value-added tax for the second quarter of 201 X (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 13, 201J, but was dismissed on May 7, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 13, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 15 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The assertion that the tax invoice is not false

As indicated in each of the instant tax invoices, the Plaintiff was supplied with scrap metal from the FFF and GGGG and accordingly received the tax invoice accordingly, and thus, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

2) The assertion that the trader is a trader of good faith and negligence

Even if the company that supplied the Plaintiff with scrap metal actually is not the FFF and GGGGGGG, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the scrap metal was supplied from companies other than FFF and GGGGG, and the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the scrap metal was supplied. The Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care in the course of verifying the business registration certificate, etc. before the commencement of the transaction and receiving the scrap metal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the input tax amount was deducted in accordance with each of the instant tax invoices.

3) The assertion that the right to tax collection is abused

The Plaintiff paid all the value-added tax pursuant to each of the instant tax invoices to FFF and GGGG. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s failure to deduct the input tax pursuant to each of the instant tax invoices, thereby making the Plaintiff pay value-added tax, is merely an abuse of the right to tax collection, and thus, the National Tax Service’s failure to collect value-added tax from FFF and GGGGG is an abuse of the right to tax collection.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 201) which denies the deduction of an input tax amount on a tax invoice received in the course of transaction refers to a case where the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the actual supplier of goods or services, or with the price and time of the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Thus, even if the transaction of supplying the goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier constitutes a different tax invoice from the actual taxpayer.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 9 and this court's significant facts, this court found that this case's tax invoice was not a false tax invoice, and this case's tax invoice was not a false tax invoice. The plaintiff's appeal of this case was dismissed on April 24, 201, but the plaintiff's allegation that this case's tax invoice was not a false tax invoice, and that this case's tax invoice was not a false tax invoice. The plaintiff's appeal of this case's Busan High Court 201K00, but the plaintiff's appeal of this case was dismissed on October 22, 201, and each of this part of the plaintiff's tax invoice was not a false tax invoice.

2) As to the second argument by the Plaintiff

An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009

원고가 이 사건 각 세금계산서에 기재된 공급자와 실제 공급자가 다르다는 사실을 알지 못하였고 알지 못한 데에 과실이 없는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 원고가 제출한 증거들만으로는 원고가 위와 같은 사실을 알지 못하였고, 알지 못한 데에 과실이 없다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다. 오히려, 앞서 든 증거들과 을 제3 내지 8호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 원고의 부산사업소 영업과장 이HH은 이II이 LLLL을 운영할 당시부터 이II과 고철거래를 해오다 LLLL이 세금체납으로 2009년경 폐업된 이후에도 이II과 고철 거래를 계속하였고, 그 과정에서 실제로는 이II으로부터 고철을 공급받으면서도 6개 업체(MMMM, PPPP, QQQQ, RRRR, FFFFF, GGGGG) 명의의 세금계산서를 발급받은 점, ② 위 6개 업체는 같은 자리나 그 인근에서 고철판매업을 하였고, 6개월에서 1년 정도의 단기간 영업을 한 후 세금체납으로 폐업된 점, ③ 고철업계의 공급 구조가 복잡하고 무자료 거래가 빈번하다는 사실이 사회문제화 되어 있으므로, 통상적인 고철업 운영자라면 고철공급업체가 실제 공급자인지 여부에 대하여 특히 주의를 기울일 필요가 있고, 특히 원고는 2009년경부터 고철 도・소매업을 운영하여 왔고, 원고의 직원인 이HH도 그 무렵 이전부터 고철업계에 종사하였으므로 국내 고철업계에서 널리 존재하는 자료상 거래의 실태 등을 잘 알고 있었을 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고는 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받을 당시 FFFFF 및 GGGGG가 실제로 고철을 공급하는 자가 아니라는 사실을 알았거나 설령 이를 알지 못하였다고 하더라도 거기에는 원고의 과실이 있었다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

3) As seen earlier with respect to the third argument by the Plaintiff, each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact by the supplier, and even if the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the fact at the time of issuance of each of the instant tax invoices, insofar as it appears that there was negligence by the Plaintiff, each of the instant dispositions, which did not deduct the input tax amount under each of the instant tax invoices, is legitimate under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the Plaintiff’s payment of value-added tax to FFF and GGGGG, cannot be deemed as an abuse of the right to tax collection. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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