Seocho 2012west 1608 ( October 13, 2012)

The tax invoice of this case cannot be viewed as a false tax invoice without fault in good faith.

The Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the difference between the original supplier and the issuer of the instant tax invoice; even if BB entered into a monopoly sales contract, the Plaintiff maintained the transaction method with the previousCC, and was doing business for several years, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was unaware of, or was not negligent in, the fact that the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice.

2012Revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax, 24900

IsaA

Head of the tax office;

March 20, 2013

April 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) on February 1, 2012 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 1, 2004, the Plaintiff is a company engaging in the wholesale and retail business in the name of "E". The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices as listed below (hereinafter referred to as "the instant tax invoice") from BB Co., Ltd. (trade name after the modification: BB, and BB; hereinafter referred to as "BB") and filed the first value-added tax return for the year 2009 after deducting the relevant input tax amount.

B. On February 1, 2012, the Defendant entered BB as a supplier even though the Plaintiff was supplied with the original group fromCC (hereinafter “CC”) on the ground that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, and issued a non-deduction of the input tax amount, and issued a correction and notice of KRW 000 of the value-added tax (including additional tax) for the first period of value-added tax in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on March 29, 2012, and received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on June 13, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] 1, 2, 7 (including natural disaster) and 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The supplier of the headquarters supplied the headquarters for more than six years, “CC entered into a monopoly sales contract with the BBB in the process of the acquisition and merger, and the original manufacture, and the BBB shall be in charge of the BB. Upon receipt of the notice from the BB that the withdrawal of the purchase tax invoice was received from the BB, and received the instant tax invoice from the BBB, and was unaware of the fact that it was a different tax invoice, and was not negligent. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice was erroneous, and the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that "in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, the input tax amount shall be deducted from the output tax amount." The phrase "in cases where the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts, the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction which is the object of taxation is merely nominal, and where there is another person to whom they belong, the person to whom they belong shall be liable for tax payment and the tax law shall be applied." In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911 of Jan. 1, 2010), and where the requisite entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, and where the person who actually supplied the goods or service was unaware of the fact that the other party to the transaction was not aware of the fact, 196.

(2) Comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments in this case, the Plaintiff’s testimony by HongD, who is an employee ofCC, had previously engaged in the exclusive sales contract and the issuance of tax invoices, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, in proceeding with the subsequent transaction relationship, maintained the order in the same manner as it had been previously entered into, have been directly shipped out from CC, and has been deposited into CC, and the RedD, which is a business employee of CC, and Park GG, continued to engage in business activities from April 1, 2009 to 2BB, and the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the former supplier was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been negligent in entering into the tax invoice for the first time, and that the Plaintiff had not been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been negligent in entering into the tax invoice from 00 to 209 to 00, while the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had not been aware of the sales contract.

3. Conclusion

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