Diab010bub2400 (201.04.05)

Considering the transaction circumstances and the reality of the companies collecting and selling scrap metals, it is presumed that it is a false tax invoice.

The Plaintiff’s purchase place is a false tax invoice in light of the fact that there is a frequent need for the collection of purchase tax invoices when it fails to receive purchase tax invoices in the process of collecting scrap metals, as the Plaintiff’s sales tax invoice was issued only in a short period, and the place of business was discontinued, and there is no trace of business at the place of business, and the Plaintiff’s collection and sales company, such as the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of total amount deposited in cash,

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011. Revocation of imposition, including value-added tax,

XXMM Co., Ltd.

Head of the tax office

November 10, 201

November 24, 2011

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff

The Defendant’s additional disposition of KRW 19,982,80, additional dues of KRW 59,480, additional dues of KRW 239,79,790, and increased additional dues of KRW 20,822,150 and corporate tax of KRW 2,297,940, additional dues of KRW 68,930, increased additional dues of KRW 27,570, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on February 1, 201, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 18, 2009, in the taxable period of value-added tax for the second term portion, the Plaintiff was issued one sheet of purchase tax invoice of KRW 114,897,000 (hereinafter “the tax invoice of this case”) from Nonparty ○○, ○, and filed a return on value-added tax and corporate tax by deducting the tax amount related to the purchase amount of this case from the Defendant.

B. From April 5, 2010 to June 11, 2010 of the same year, the head of the racing tax office notified the Defendant to correct and notify the value-added tax for the second period of February 2009 and the corporate tax for the year 2009, on the ground that the pertinent tax invoice is different from the fact as a tax invoice for disguised transactions.

C. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the aggregate of KRW 19,982,880, additional dues of KRW 59,480, increased additional dues of KRW 239,79,790, and KRW 20,822,150, and KRW 2,297,940, additional dues of KRW 68,930, increased additional dues of KRW 27,570, and KRW 2,394,440, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. On March 16, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an examination with the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on April 25, 201, and the written decision reached the Plaintiff on May 2, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 6, 7, 8-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the Gu interest of the sum of 11,589kg and 5,196kg and the sum of 26,789kg of Dong-dong 11,589g and Dong-dong 5,196kg as a passbook, and received the instant tax invoice. Of the scrap metal purchased as above, Dong-dong supplied the instant tax invoice to the factory in the city of △△△, a stock company, and directly supplied the freight to the factory in the city of △△, a stock company. Therefore, even if the instant tax invoice is not a false transaction, the instant disposition based on the premise that the said tax invoice is a disguised transaction is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Circumstances concerning ○○ Scrap iron, which is a business partner

A) A place where 000, an Ansan-si, which is the place of business of ○○ Scrap iron, is left alone in the state of a site, and there is no facility for operating a normal business, such as an office or fence.

B) On May 18, 2009, 000, ○○ scrap metal was started and closed on April 26, 2010. However, on the second quarter of 2009, 5,09,000 won was issued only for the second quarter of 2009, the purchase price of KRW 1,760,000 is excessively excessive, and the purchase price of KRW 1,760,00,00 was excessive. GG Korea and D trading companies that are the parties to the transaction for the said period are suspected of filing a complaint with the National Tax Service as data or of being suspected of having the actual purchase as a business entity with no material purchase.

C) In the first quarter of 2010, ○○ scrap metal issued only the sales tax invoice of KRW 1,458,000,000, and did not all purchase data.

D) The ○○ Scrap metal immediately withdrawn the total amount of the transaction amount remitted from the customer in cash, and did not pay KRW 312,000,000,000 for the amount of value-added tax on February 2009.

2) Based on these circumstances, the head of the racing tax office accused ○○ High Iron, and B stated to the effect that she was allowed to use the name on April 2009 by the request of the PAL at the time of birth from the police station, and that she was allowed to use the name on April 200, as a result, KRW 6 million, and the actual work was handled by PAL, and that she was only lent the name.

3) On August 18, 2009, in the course of tax office investigation, the Plaintiff’s representative Park XX stated that the Plaintiff purchased the said Gu Ri after verifying only the business registration certificate at the near the Ulsan Airport.

4) around 16:00 on August 18, 2009, Park XX transferred KRW 70,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of thisB. On August 19, 2009, around 08:49, the following day deposited KRW 56,386,700 to the said account. Of these, around 16:00 on August 18, 2009, KRW 50,000 was deposited at the Busan Central Federation of Busan, Busan, Busan, 16:0,000 in cash at the Busan, Busan, Busan, 2340-7, and around 16:11 on the same day, the total amount of KRW 30,00,000 in cash at the Busan, 372-2, 16:372-11 on the same day, and the remainder was withdrawn from the Seoul Central Federation around 13:00 on August 18, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that a tax invoice received from a specific transaction constitutes an illegal disposition that satisfies the requirements for taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008) under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the deduction of an input tax amount is denied on the ground that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction for which no substantial delivery or transfer of goods is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of taxes, the burden of proving the fact of taxation is imposed on the person who is not aware of the fact that the other party is not eligible for the application of the empirical rule unless it proves the fact that the other party is in question in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is an unlawful disposition that does not meet the requirements for taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du278)., the supplier who did not know that the actual supplier.

A) The aforementioned evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 5, witness's testimony and the above facts revealed as follows. 1. Value-added tax was discontinued after the intensive issuance of the sales tax invoice for a short period of business, and it is deemed that the Plaintiff issued false tax invoices because it is no longer possible to find an office or a trace of business at the place of business. 2. 3. It is difficult to obtain the Plaintiff's money transferred to the Plaintiff in cash. 4. It was the first transaction between the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 20.

B) Therefore, the Plaintiff should prove special circumstances that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know the fact that the instant tax invoice is the same as the facts or the disguised facts of the said tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. In light of the background of receipt of the instant tax invoice, the operating form of ○○ Scrap iron, the form of transaction between the Plaintiff and ○○ Scrap iron, the flow of funds deposited into the transaction amount, and the statements by BB, etc., the witness witness witness testimony is difficult to believe it, or it is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts solely on the basis of this, and there is no evidence to prove the above facts.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, and as determined earlier, the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff is presumed to have not received a tax invoice from the real purchaser. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a disguised tax invoice is all lawful.

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.