early 2012 Middle 1610 ( October 30, 2012)

It is not recognized that the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence that received a false tax invoice is not recognized.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff engaged in the scrap metal business for about 10 years, and the time of receipt is after the cessation of the business of the customer, and the location of the business place or business facilities of the customer, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff could sufficiently have known that the said tax invoice was made out, if he knew that the tax invoice of this case was false or paid attention to the fact that the tax invoice of this case was made in falsity.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap318 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AAA, Inc.

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

July 25, 2013

September 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax on January 5, 201 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 23, 2011, the taxable period of the value-added tax for the first quarter of the year 201, the Plaintiff: (a) received a tax invoice of the supply price OOC (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from each other company called “CCC” (representativeD) (hereinafter “instant purchase amount”); and (b) filed a value-added tax return after deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

B. On January 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) notified the Central and Medium Regional Tax Office of the taxation data that CCC was data data; (b) deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice; and (c) accordingly, deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount; and (d) corrected and notified the Plaintiff on January 5, 2011, KRW OO of value-added tax for the first period (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 30, 2012 but was dismissed on October 30, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff actually purchased goods from AD and received the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice, but a bona fide transaction party with good faith, which is not negligent in conducting the transaction of Aluminium without any problem with CCC around November 2010, and not only verified the business registration certificate of CCC prior to the transaction, but also was refunded the transaction amount remitted to the bank account of AD. Therefore, CCC is deemed a bona fide transaction party with no fault in conducting the transaction with the actual supplier.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. In such cases, the meaning of different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is a separate person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that where the necessary entries in a tax invoice do not coincide with those in a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

(4) Comprehensively taking account of the overall arguments in evidence Nos. 2 through 19, (1) the input tax amount reported by the head of the tax office of Korea from 108 to 1, 2010 is 10%, and the input tax amount reported by the head of the tax office of Korea from 2010 to 1, 201 is found non-existent, and (2) the OE-4 of 206-4 was used as the place of business of the ECE industry from July 1, 2007 to 200, and the POF stated that the above land was not leased to AO, and (3) the 2) the POD 2) the Plaintiff stated that it was not able to use the AO's 0-point 2 market, and that it was 0 or less than the 2) the POD 20-point 3 (OJ 2) the sales and purchase price of the POJ 2).

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a trading party with good faith and negligence

In the absence of special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless the person who received the other tax invoice was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

In light of the following circumstances, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case, and that the Plaintiff did not know that there was any negligence, and that the Plaintiff did not properly confirm the location of the business place or business facilities of CCC after the closure of the CCC. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was sufficiently aware that the Plaintiff prepared the tax invoice of this case if the Plaintiff knew that the tax invoice of this case was false or was committed for about 10 years after the establishment of around 2000, and that: (i) the supply structure and distribution channel of the scrap metal, and the industry’s general form and method, and the transaction situation and risk of the data. (ii) The time when the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case was the date after the closure of the CCC; and (iii) the Plaintiff appears to have failed to properly confirm the location of the business place or business facilities of CCC after the trade with CCC.

3. Conclusion

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