Daegu District Court 2014Guhap20188

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff engaging in the scrap metal business is a bona fide trading party.

In light of the photographs, records of account transfer, certificate of measurement, etc. taken with the customer business operator, even if the tax invoice of this case is false, the plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu4731 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

O Head of tax office

Daegu District Court Decision 2014Guhap20188 Decided February 4, 2015

March 18, 2016

April 15, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 52,50,030 on January 3, 2013 against the Plaintiff at KRW 52,50,030 on January 3, 2013;

Part 38,771,856, and Part 227,192,830 won of value-added tax for 2010

Excessive Disposition and global income belonging to the year 2010, January 8, 2013, as global income tax of KRW 9,902,310, and global income belonging to the year 2011

The imposition of tax 26,653,370 won shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) in the O-O-O-O of the Gyeongbuk-gun OE O-O of the Gyeongbuk-gun, the Plaintiff: (b) was a business operator operating the scrap metal wholesale and retail business; (c) on January 1, 2010 to December 31, 201, BB (hereinafter “BB”); (d)CC metal (HH); (c) ZZ (hereinafter “ZK”); (d) D metal (KK); (JJ); and (c) received purchase tax invoices of KRW 2,631,149,00 in total; and (d) deducted them from the output tax amount; and (e) reported and paid value-added tax to the Defendant after deducting the purchase tax invoices of KRW 2,631,149,00 from the output tax amount (hereinafter “each of the above purchase places”; and (e) each of the above tax invoices was each of the above tax invoices.

B. The Defendant notified of the result of the investigation on the data on each of the instant purchasing parties, conducted the personal data integration investigation on June 28, 2012 to November 12, 2012, and thereafter deducted each of the instant input tax amounts on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was a tax invoice different from the fact. On January 3, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff of KRW 52,50,030, value-added tax of KRW 1,50,030, value-added tax of KRW 183,95,92,920, and KRW 227,192,830, and KRW 25,930, global income tax of KRW 205,570, global income tax of KRW 2010 for the second year of value-added tax of KRW 203,536,637, May 8, 2013, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request on March 25, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request on November 6, 2013.

D. Meanwhile, in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of the second period of the year 2010, which was instituted by the Z against the head of the OOO, the judgment of claimant was rendered on the grounds that the Z cannot be deemed to have been issued and issued without any transaction of goods. On February 13, 2014, the said judgment became final and conclusive on the 25th of the same month, and the head of the OOO confirmed the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Z as a normal transaction, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

E. Accordingly, on April 7, 2014 and the 111th of the same month, the Defendant corrected the amount of the second-year value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax for the year 2010 to the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 40, 41, Eul evidence 1, 2, 8, 9 (including each number)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The burden of proving that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a "tax invoice different from the facts" under Article 17 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act is borne by the tax authority. Thus, the defendant must prove that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice. The plaintiff directly visited each of the purchase places of business of this case to verify the location of the place of business, business registration certificate, name name of the representative, identification card, and copy of the passbook for seal imprint (the representative's name) and then traded after checking whether the representative is working in the actual place of business. Thus, each of the tax invoices

2) Even if the transaction partner's name was proved to be a business operator in the name of the trader, the plaintiff visited the trader in advance to check the identity card and the business registration certificate. After confirming the goods at the business place of the trader, the plaintiff was requested to obtain documents such as a certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, etc. prior to the transaction, and the delivery contract was made in order to verify the evidence of transaction, and the plaintiff was made with a camera installed in the fraternity since 2011 so that the number plate of the transport vehicle was displayed at the time of the transaction of the goods. In order to secure the evidence related to the purchase of goods, the plaintiff was taken to obtain the vehicle's name, vehicle number, resident registration number, and cell phone number from the driver of the vehicle, and the plaintiff was suspected of violating the duty of care in light of the fact that the plaintiff was purchased from the driver of the vehicle in good faith in the course of the transaction, and the plaintiff was charged with the transaction of the vehicle in question, and the plaintiff was charged with the transaction of the vehicle in question.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false

A) According to Articles 16(1)1 and 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same), an input tax amount cannot be deducted or refundable unless there are special circumstances where a person who actually supplies a tax invoice and a supplier under a tax invoice are different from the fact, falls under “where a necessary entry item is entered differently from the fact” under Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act. In such cases, an entrepreneur who actually supplies goods or services to a person who is not a person who forms a nominal legal relationship with a supplied business entity, but rather a person who actually performs a transaction of supplying goods or services to a person who is not a person who is not a person who is in a nominal legal relationship with the supplied business entity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du538, Aug. 20, 2014; 96Da4839780, Mar. 28, 1997).

(b)the tax invoice received from BB;

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of the closure of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is a third party, not BB, and BB merely constitutes a disguised transaction that issues only the tax invoice to the Plaintiff under its own name. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from BB constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff’s entry constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

① On March 1, 2010, BB is NB as a non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail company that runs a place of business at OO-O-O on March 1, 2010. The sales amount from January 1, 2012 to March 22, 2012, approximately KRW 7.3 billion for sales, and KRW 1.6 billion for sales amount for the preceding year.

② As a result of the Defendant’s investigation, most buyers were identified as data, and there was no purchase-free sales in the details of purchase and sales submitted at the time of the investigation, and circumstances such as issuance of tax invoices before sales were discovered that are difficult to see in normal commercial transactions.

③ NN and BB were indicted on December 26, 2014 on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) (OO district court 2014 High ConsolidatedOO) by stating the false list of the total tax invoices and the total tax invoices by buyer, and convicted on December 26, 2014 (NN: Imprisonment with labor for three years, and fine of KRW 4 billion, and fine of KRW 2240,000,000, and fine of KRW 100,000,000,000,000). The two appeals are pending in the appellate court (O High 2015NoO).

(c)tax invoices received from EE resources and F resources;

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of the closure of a tax invoice by the Plaintiff is a third party, not EE resources and FF resources, and the EE resources and FF resources are merely those who issued only tax invoices to the Plaintiff under the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from EE resources and FF resources constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① On February 20, 2011, EE resources opened a place of business with O-O-O at O-dong O-O, and thereafter, approximately KRW 15.3 billion was reported and the value-added tax was not paid for six months from July 1, 201 to December 31, 201.

② The JJ confirmed the representatives of EE resources as the heads of the so-called branch offices due to the lack of work experience or work experience in the business related to non-legal affairs.

③ The J was indicted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) (hereinafter “O2014 Gohap”) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “O2”) that “The J, under the direction of the actual operator of the EE resources, sold the waste glass, etc. to the customer through a certain distribution stage, but it was actually ordered to issue a tax invoice under the name of EE resources to the customer, and then paid the amount transferred to the account in cash to the account in its name.” On July 10, 2014, the J was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and a fine of one hundred and sixty billion won (1.6 billion won) (O200 MaO2014 MaO). The judgment dismissing the appeal on January 28, 2015 (O2014 Mao High Court).

④ On June 20, 201, FF had a place of business established in O-Eup O-type O-type O-type 878-1, and FF resources had no sales amounting to approximately KRW 11.7 billion for six months from June 20, 201 to December 31, 2011, and did not pay value-added tax after reporting sales amount of KRW 11.7 billion without purchase data.

⑤ The representative LL of F resources was confirmed as the so-called branch office with no experience and income in the business related to scrap metal.

6) The LL was charged with a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) (hereinafter “O District Court 2014 Gohap”) with the purport that, under the direction of the actual operator, the listed goods were sold to customers, but the FF resources had been issued tax invoices in the name of the customer. On May 29, 2014, the LL was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of three years and fine of 1.2 billion won (OO District Court OOO branch 2014 Gohap branch 2014). However, the judgment dismissing the appeal (O High Court 2014 O) and the judgment dismissing the appeal (Supreme Court 2014 OO) were sentenced respectively.

(d) a tax invoice received fromCC metal;

In light of the following circumstances, each of the above facts and evidence Nos. 4, 19, and 26, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the actual purchasing place of the Plaintiff’s closure of the tax invoice is a third party, notCC metal, andCC metal merely constitutes a so-called disguised transaction that issues only tax invoices to the Plaintiff under its own name. Therefore, the tax invoice received fromCC metal constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① On July 10, 2010,CC metal was closed immediately on August 23, 2010, where two months have not elapsed since it opened a place of business with OO-O-O, Daegu O-dong O-O, and was closed immediately on August 23, 2010.

② There is no details of the purchase amount reported to the competent tax office with respect to the transaction during the said period byCC metal to KRW 1.97 billion, sales amount of KRW 2.671 billion, but there is no details of the purchase tax invoice issued by the transaction partner.

③ H appears to be a person who is incapable of operating a scrap metal business on the same scale as above, since there is no sufficient business history or the same type of business and there is no sufficient property.

④ H has withdrawn in cash the sales amount received from the Plaintiff, etc. on the day of such payment (No. 26). It is difficult to understand that the company operating the business normally withdraws the sales amount deposited in the transaction account in cash on the day of such withdrawal.

⑤ AOO, which operates a same kind of company near the location of theCC metal business place, stated that the vehicle used to transport waste glass on the CCTV metal was not frequently seen.

(6) Meanwhile, even though HH was found to have received a non-prosecution disposition on the ground of lack of evidence on the grounds of the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it is merely insufficient evidence to prove the facts constituting the crime against HH. The same value of evidence as the criminal judgment finalized by the prosecutor’s office cannot be granted. The administrative judgment is not necessarily bound by the non-prosecution disposition, but is contrary to the free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da21884, Dec. 26, 1995; 87Nu493, Oct. 26, 1987).

(e)the tax invoice received from DM;

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchasing entity of the closure of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is a third party, not Dmetallic, and D metal is a disguised trader that issued only tax invoices to the Plaintiff under its own name.Therefore, the tax invoice received from D Metal constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff’s entry of the supplier constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① On August 13, 2010, DM opened a place of business in Daegu OOdong 287-1 (the same location asCC metal and its place of business) and closed down on December 31, 2010.

② While the sales amount reported to the competent tax office with respect to the transaction during the above period is about KRW 19.8 billion, there was no report on purchase amount at all.

③ KK’s representative of DM is not capable of engaging in the same type of business or non-ferrous-related business, and there is no sufficient property owned, and it seems that it is incapable of operating the scrap metal business on a large scale as seen above due to alcohol addiction.

④ The actual operator of DNA metal, who runs a non-ferrous metal wholesale business under the trade name of "O resources", has abused practices in trading non-metallic metals in the high-water industry, and has purchased and supplied non-ferrous metals to the seller, who had not registered business operators, as if O resources were directly supplied to the seller, prepared a tax invoice as if it had prepared a tax invoice and delivered them to the seller, and immediately withdrawn the total amount of the sales payment, concealed the purchase transaction, and then exempted the value-added tax by closing O resources, and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 3.6 billion won for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax), and was sentenced to the judgment (OO district branch branch 2012 High Court 20000000 and 201200000000 won). However, the judgment of dismissal and appeal were sentenced to each of the judgment of the lower court (O High Court 2012O) and the judgment of dismissal of appeal (Supreme Court 2012O).

(5) KK has withdrawn in cash the sales amount received from the sales office, including the Plaintiff, on the day of the payment, and it is difficult to understand that the company operating the business normally withdraws the sales amount deposited in the transaction account in cash on the day of the payment.

(6) On the other hand, KK is deemed to have received a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds of lack of evidence against the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) but it is merely not sufficient to prove the facts constituting the crime against KK, and the court may recognize the facts opposing it as a free conviction based on evidence.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

A) An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice in the name of the supplier, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount is obliged to prove the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the same name as the above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). However, in full view of the following: (a) the process of issuing and delivering the tax invoice; (b) the specific route and process of the supplied goods or services; and (c) whether the recipient confirmed the place of business or business facilities of the supplier in the name of the supplier; and (d) the actual supplier is not a supplier in the tax invoice; and (b) the recipient cannot be readily deemed to have been negligent in having been aware of the fact that the actual supplier was merely a nominal supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6575, Jul. 27, 2013).

Meanwhile, in the case of waste resources, such as waste Dong, it cannot be deemed that the other party is a disguised business entity due to the nature of the distribution structure and transaction. Thus, there are sufficient circumstances to suspect that the other party is a disguised business entity in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a qualified business entity. However, the other party was negligent in not knowing that it is a disguised business entity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 1997).

B) In light of the following circumstances, the above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 40, 42 through 45, Eul evidence Nos. 48 through 69, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and 18 (including each number), the witness OO of the court of first instance, and the witness OO of the court of first instance’s testimony can be considered as a whole of the arguments. Each of the purchase places of this case can not be readily concluded that there are sufficient circumstances to suspect that the plaintiff actually supplied scrap metal, etc. to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff did not know that the transaction of scrap metal, etc. under each tax invoice of this case (hereinafter “each transaction of this case”) was a disguised transaction, and the plaintiff was negligent in not knowing such circumstances. Therefore, the plaintiff’s above assertion is with merit.

① At the time of commencing transactions with each of the instant purchasing agencies, the Plaintiff directly visited the place of business, etc. as follows, and confirmed the site, and received a copy of the business registration certificate, a representative’s name, and a copy of the passbook, and confirmed whether the other party to transactions is the representative of the transaction partner.

In transactions with BB: The Plaintiff received name cards (No. 38-1), identification cards (No. 38-2), copy of the business registration certificate (No. 38-3) from N, and the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff directly visited the BB’s place of business to verify the fact that the scrap metal, etc. was partially visible, and recorded the entrance of the place of business to keep evidence (No. 38-4). BB’s place of business was kept at approximately KRW 600-700 square meters (No. 33).

The transaction with ○○ E Resources was conducted by the JJ on July 1, 201 by the Plaintiff’s representative of EE Resources (Evidence 28-1 of the A), the certificate of personal seal impression (Evidence 28-8 of the A), the copy of the identification certificate (Evidence 28-9 of the A), the copy of the business registration certificate (Evidence 28-10 of the A), the certified copy of the resident registration card (Evidence 28-1 of the A), and verified the personal information of the representative, and directly visited and photographs the place of business (Evidence 28-2 of the A), and the contract term between the JJ and the J on July 11, 201 and December 31, 2011.

○ Transaction with F Resources: The Plaintiff received a copy of the business registration certificate (No. 6-1), the certificate of personal seal impression (No. 7-2), the name card (No. 7-2), the copy of the identification card (No. 7-3), the copy of the business account card (No. 7-4), the certified copy of the resident registration card (No. 7-5) from the representative of the F Resources, and verified the personal information of the representative, and visited and photographs the place of business (No. 10-3-7), the fact that the Plaintiff used the seal impression and the transaction account from LL for the transaction with the Plaintiff (No. 4), and drafted a contract for contract between LL and the Plaintiff on Oct. 1, 2011 to Oct. 5, 201 (No. 5).

The transaction with the ○CC metal: The Plaintiff obtained a name card (No. 33-1), a copy of the identification card (No. 33-2), a copy of the business registration certificate (No. 33-3), a copy of the business passbook (No. 33-4) from the representative of theCC metal, and verified the personal information of the representative, etc., and visited the place of business in person and photographs with the H (No. 33-5).

○○ Transactions with D Metal: The Plaintiff obtained a certificate of personal seal impression (No. 22-1), a copy of the identification card (No. 22-2), a copy of the business registration certificate (No. 22-3), a copy of the business registration certificate (No. 22-4), the personal information, etc. of the representative from the representative of the D Metal, and confirmed the personal information, etc. of the representative, and visited the workplace directly with KK and taken photographs (No. 22-5).

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff traded with each of the instant purchasing places, and prepared a tax invoice and a detailed statement of transaction with the purchasing places as follows, prepared a measurement certificate on the supplied goods, deposited the transaction amount into the bank account in the name of the principal of the transaction place, and received a written confirmation of the movement of non-ferrous metal scrap. The evidence and the circumstances of the allegation presented by the Defendant alone are not enough to find out special circumstances that the actual supplier of scrap metal, etc. to the Plaintiff at each of the instant transactions is not the purchasing places of this case.

Trading with BB: The Plaintiff drafted a measurement certificate (No. 36-1 through 48) on May 20, 2010 through June 7, 2010 in the course of receiving scrap crap from BB, and on May 25, 2010 and June 8, 2010, received tax invoices (No. 34-1, 2) and transaction statements (No. 35-1, 2) on two occasions on June 25, 2010, and deposited scrap proceeds into the account in the name of BB on each of the above dates (No. 37-1, 2).

○ Transaction with E Resources: On August 4, 201, when the Plaintiff was supplied with Adong, etc. from EE resources, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (Evidence No. 23-1 through 3) and a statement of transaction (Evidence No. 24-1 to 24-3) from August 5, 201, and prepared a measurement certificate (Evidence No. 25-1 to 12), and transferred the amount of scrap metal to the account of EE resources (Evidence No. 27).

On October 14, 201, after being supplied with Adong, etc. from FF resources, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice (No. 1-8) and a statement of transaction (No. 2-1-8) in Chapter 8 on October 27, 2011, and prepared a measurement certificate (No. 3-1-27) with respect to the goods supplied during the above period, and transferred the price for scrap metal to the account of FF resources (No. 8). In addition, the Plaintiff issued the FF resources business registration certificate as corrected from LL due to the change of the place of business (No. 6-2-3), and the driving engineer’s certificate was prepared with the Plaintiff’s respective certificates of transaction No. 10-17, Oct. 17, 2011, with the Plaintiff’s respective certificates of confirmation No. 10-27, Oct. 27, 2017 (No. 10-27, 2011).

On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (Evidence No. 29) and transaction statement (Evidence No. 30) from theCC metal, prepared or received a measurement certificate (Evidence No. 32-1 through 8 of the A), and transferred the scrap metal to theCC metal account (Evidence No. 31 of the A).

○ Transaction with D Metal: On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff was supplied with Adong from F Resources and was issued a tax invoice (Evidence No. 18) and a statement of transaction (Evidence No. 19). The Plaintiff drafted a measurement certificate (Evidence No. 20, 39) and transferred the scrap metal amount to D Metal Account (Evidence No. 21).

③ In general, the purpose of using so-called ‘data’ or ‘defavour’ is to evade taxes by means of a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff paid the entire amount of the transaction price and the value-added tax thereon through a bank account in the name of the business partner’s representative. In comparison with the transaction price of the same business entity or the business-based unit price. Therefore, if the Plaintiff paid the value-added tax, etc. even though he was aware that the transaction was a disguised transaction with each of the business parties of this case, it would be the risk of double burden of value-added tax, and thus, it would be an exceptional case in light of social norms. Moreover, there is no objective evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received the refund of the transaction price and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax paid by the Plaintiff through the bank account in the name of the business representative.

④ The Defendant initially issued a tax invoice issued from the Z to the Plaintiff at the time of the integrated investigation into the individual purchaser of the material facts and included it in the subject of taxation by deeming that the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence was not recognized, but thereafter, the part concerning the transaction with the Z was excluded from the subject of taxation. However, in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, the Plaintiff issued 9 copies of the tax invoice equivalent to the total value of 801,414,000 won from the Z in total, which accounts for a significant portion of the Plaintiff’s purchase transaction.

⑤ After examining the transaction documents, such as tax invoices, payment statement, measurement certificate, transport evidentiary documents, entrance photographs, and expressway passes, the Defendant verified that the actual sales had been made as stated in the report. The Defendant failed to discover the omission of sales or the details of the processed sales (Evidence No. 18).

④ The Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which received each of the instant tax invoices, even though the Plaintiff did not receive the goods from each of the instant buyers, but was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on April 26, 2013 (Evidence A42).

⑦ 폐동의 거래는 운송비의 절감과 거래 편의상 중간도매상들이 각지에서 폐동을 수집하여 이를 자기의 사업장에 상��하차하지 않고, 직접 폐동을 싣고 가서 원고와 같은 납품처에서 계근과 대금 수령 및 세금계산서의 교부 등을 동시에 하는 경우가 많아 보이고, 이러한 폐동의 거래 관행과 행정소송 제도의 목적 및 사법권에 의한 국민의 권익보호 기능을 고려해 볼 때, 원고가 이 사건 각 매입처가 위장사업자에 해당 하는지에 대하여 그 사업장(야적장) 방문 등 앞서 살핀 사정들 외에 추가적인 조사・확인을 하지 않았다는 사정만을 이유로 원고에게 그 거래상 과실이 있다고 쉽게 단정할 것은 아니다.

(8) The report on the completion of investigation on suspicion of material facts on part of each of the purchasing parties of this case states that "where a customer who received a tax invoice from the company subject to investigation asserts that it is a normal transaction, it is reasonable to judge whether the party is a bona fide victim and individually understand the specific circumstances, etc. at the district tax office having jurisdiction over the case (Article 3 through 5)." The defendant himself states that all of the transaction in this case constitutes a real transaction, but the transaction in this case constitutes a false transaction, and it does not mean that the plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that each of the purchase parties of this case is a false tax invoice on the ground that each of the purchase parties of this case constitutes a disguised transaction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of all of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.