early 208Gu2682 ( October 13, 2008)

The legitimacy of the assertion that only the actual purchase of scrap metal and the receipt of the tax invoice was not known;

It cannot be said that the Plaintiff was not at fault on the part of the actual supplier of scrap metal, as to whether the actual supplier was a disguised supplier.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

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 171, 203 against the Plaintiff on June 3, 2008, KRW 395,930, value-added tax of 171, 2004, KRW 96,720,480, and KRW 271, value-added tax of 271, 2004, shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 1998, the Plaintiff was engaged in the wholesale business with the trade name called “○○ Commercial Code”.

As a result, when purchasing scrap metal of KRW 2,299,080 from ○ Steel (hereinafter “○ Steel”) to 171 minutes (from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003), a limited liability company (hereinafter “○○ Steel”) received a statement of accounts for purchase tax amount equivalent to that amount, and then filed an application for purchase tax amount of KRW 618,110,560 with each of the above input tax invoices for the first period of January 2004 (from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004) from a limited liability company (hereinafter “○○ Steel”), and each of the above input tax invoices was purchased from 204 to 481,298,56, and each of the above input tax invoices was purchased from each of the above input tax invoices (from July 1, 2004 to 30, 204).

B. However, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff’s actual purchase price at KRW 74,966,960 of value-added tax on June 3, 2008 on the following grounds: (a) since the Plaintiff’s actual purchase price is not “○○○ Resources operated by ○○ Steel and ○○ Steel,” the instant purchase tax invoice was written differently from the fact by the supplier; (b) thus, the instant input tax invoice cannot be deducted from the output tax amount for each quarter; and (c) on the Plaintiff on June 3, 2008, value-added tax of KRW 395,930 of value-added tax on KRW 171 in 203; (d) KRW 96,720,480 in 171 in 204; and (e) KRW 74,96,96

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal against the instant disposition; however, the Plaintiff filed an appeal:

The Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's request on October 13, 2008.

[Ground of Recognition] A; evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, and 2-A; evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4; evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, 2, 3; evidence Nos. 6-1 through 11; evidence Nos. 7; evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3; evidence Nos. 2 and 3; evidence Nos. 4-1, 6-1, 6-2; evidence Nos. 7; evidence Nos. 8-1, 7; evidence Nos. 8-1, 2; and 9 through 12; submission order of financial transaction information to the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation's branch; the purport of all pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the instant disposition, which did not deduct the instant input tax amount from the output tax amount for each quarter, was unlawful, on the grounds that the Plaintiff: (a) actually purchased scrap metals from ○○ Steel and ○○ Steel; and (b) received the instant purchase tax invoices; and (c) supplied scrap metals to the Plaintiff using the name of ○ Steel, a disguised company, and ○○ Steel, in order to distribute the tax amount of ○○ Resources operated by ○○ Steel, and issued the instant purchase tax invoices.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination

(1) Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted in cases where all or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act, which are the necessary entry items of the tax invoice, are entered differently from the facts, shall not be deducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4761, Dec. 11, 2003). Thus, in violation of Article 16 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, a person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove that the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice are not negligent in not knowing the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were entered in the name of the tax invoice and did not know the fact that they were not aware of the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du27727, Jun. 28, 2002).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of each of the above facts: ① the Plaintiff purchased 171 minute of 203 and 271 minute of this case’s purchase tax invoices from ○○○○ Steel Co., Ltd. for 200 and 1.274; ② the Plaintiff received ○○ Steel Co., Ltd.’s purchase tax invoices, including 16.10, and ○○○ Steel Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 206 Co., Ltd.’s 2006 Co., Ltd.

(3) In light of the above facts, at least there were sufficient circumstances to suspect who is the actual supplier of scrap metal constituting the input tax amount of the instant input tax, and whether ○○ Steel and ○○ Steel are not a disguised business operator for the issuance and delivery of false or disguised tax invoices. Thus, as to the fact that ○ Steel and ○○ Steel were not a disguised business operator, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the supplier of the instant purchase tax invoice, so the instant disposition that the instant input tax amount cannot be deducted is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.