Whether it constitutes false tax invoices and ships without fault and whether it is subject to unfair penalty tax

In imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff, it is a tax invoice different from the fact, but does not constitute good faith and negligence, but the general under-reported penalty tax under Article 47-3 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes should be imposed, not an illegal under-reported penalty tax under Article 47-3 (2) of the same Act. Therefore, the portion exceeding the amount of general under-reported penalty tax

Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Tax Invoice)

Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Additional Tax on Underreporting and Excess Refund Return)

2014Guhap104727 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Co., Ltd. 000

00. Head of tax office

on March 30, 2016

on October 06, 2016

1. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 59,889,160 in excess of KRW 50,215 in the imposition of KRW 50,219,215 in 201 against the Plaintiff, the amount exceeding KRW 615,025,334 in the imposition of KRW 737,856,360 in the second half-year value-added tax in 201, and the amount exceeding KRW 426,613,183 in the imposition of KRW 514,987,70 in the imposition of KRW 1-year value-added tax in 201 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 59,889,160 for 201 against the Plaintiff, KRW 737,856,360 for 201, and KRW 514,987,70 for 201, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on May 22, 2009 and engaged in steel scrap Do. retail and scrap metal processing business, etc., and supplied to AAAA (hereinafter “AAA”) by purchasing scrap metal, etc.

B. During the taxable period from the first half to the first half of 2012, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice equivalent to the total supply value of KRW 8,498,104,710 in the name of six enterprises, including BB as follows, and accordingly, deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount and filed a value-added tax return.

1) The Plaintiff stated the date of disposition on December 6, 2013 in the written complaint’s correction to December 2, 2013, because it is apparent that it is an error or clerical error in December 2, 2013.

C. On September 1, 2012, the Defendant denied input tax deduction according to the tax invoice under the name ofCC, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the amount of KRW 188,540,510 (including additional taxes) for the second period of value-added tax in 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “previous disposition”). Although the Plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous disposition, the Plaintiff was dismissed in the judgment of 2013Guhap2732 on July 17, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2015.

D. In addition, as a result of the Plaintiff’s tax investigation from September 5, 2013 to September 24, 2013, the Defendant determined that the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff under the name of BB, DDD, EE, FF, and GG (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the tax invoice was issued without actual transaction (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). Accordingly, the Defendant denied the exemption of the input tax pursuant to the instant tax invoice, and issued the Plaintiff on December 2, 2013, issued a revised notice of KRW 59,889,160 (including additional tax), the value-added tax amount of KRW 737,856,360 (including additional tax), the value-added tax amount for the second period of February 2011 to the Plaintiff (including additional tax), the value-added tax amount of KRW 514,987,70 (hereinafter “value-added tax”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on February 28, 2014, but the said claim was dismissed on September 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 15, 16 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, like the entry of the instant tax invoice, was actually supplied by the instant purchaser, and thus, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the purchase price of this case is a disguised business operator, the Plaintiff did not know such fact, and there was no negligence in failing to know it, and the Plaintiff constitutes a trader with no fault in good faith.

3) The instant tax invoice for household affairs is a tax invoice different from the facts, and even if the Plaintiff was unaware of such facts due to negligence, the Plaintiff’s tax amount issued by the instant purchaser.

It was false that the purchaser of this case, which is the trading partner, did not recognize that the purchaser would evade the value-added tax. Nevertheless, it was unlawful to impose an unfair under-reported additional tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff under-reported the value-added tax by improper means.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2)1 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 a case, the meaning that it is different from the fact is subject to taxation. Income, profit, calculation, act or transaction is nominal, and if there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually 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 of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, notwithstanding the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, the said entry amount refers to the case where the actual supplier and the person to whom the goods or

(B) whether a tax invoice issued by BBB, EE, FF is false or false;

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 18 through 23, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 9, and 12, it is reasonable to view that the actual supplier of scrap metal stated in the BB’s tax invoice under the JJ’s name of HH, EE representatives III, FFF representatives is a person other than HH, III, JJ, and HH, III, and JJ merely lends only the name of the issuer of the tax invoice. Accordingly, it is insufficient to reverse the recognition solely on the basis of the evidence Nos. 9, 11, and 12. Therefore, since the tax invoice of the instant case falls under the facts different from the facts, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part of the tax invoice is without merit.

(1) BB was a business closed on May 20, 201 after its business registration and on March 31, 2012, and reported the sales amount of approximately KRW 9.623 billion in 200,000,000,000 from the first to the first year 2012. On the other hand, the purchase amount is only KRW 2.2 billion, and the value-added tax was not paid KRW 7.32 billion in value-added tax.

HH, the representative of BB, was a non-property owner who had no experience in engaging in the scrap metal wholesale business at the time of the registration of the business. In return for receiving KRW 100 million or KRW 150 million, HH agreed to lend the business name to KK and made the business registration of BB. NN was responsible for supplying scrap metal to the business partner of BB, and HH was a party to the transaction such as the Plaintiff, etc. prepared a tax invoice according to the direction of KK upon request of KK for the issuance of the tax invoice, HH was a party to K or the business partner, and HH immediately withdrawned the amount of goods deposited into the account in its own name and transferred it to KK, etc.

BBBB은 $$시 $$면 $$리 459-2에 사업장 소재지를 두었는데, 계근대 등 고철을 출하할 수 있는 시설이 설치되어 있기는 하였으나 야적장이 약 350평에불과하여 위 매출액에 상당하는 고철을 거래할 수 있는 규모가 아니었고, 실제로 거래처에 납품한 고철의 상당 부분이 BBBB의 사업장 소재지가 아닌 다른 곳에서 직접 거래처에 공급되었다.

(2) EE is a business closed on July 1, 201 after its business registration was made on December 31, 201, and reported about KRW 8.98 billion in the sales of the first and second years in 201, while the purchase amount is limited to KRW 94 billion in the amount of KRW 94 billion in the value-added tax, and KRW 7.1 billion in the value-added tax was not paid.

From July 1, 2010, III, the representative of EE, agreed to lend the name of the business entity to KK in return for receiving KRW 150 million from August 1, 201. III, while NN and K have lent the name of EE to the business entity, he/she separately supplied the scrap metal to another business entity, while he/she supplied the scrap metal to the business entity such as the Plaintiff, etc., he/she did not have any transaction with the Plaintiff, nor did it supply the scrap metal to the Plaintiff at the location of the business entity of EEE.

Around August 2011, the amount of goods deposited into the account in the name of the customer III was most immediately withdrawn in cash from the customer, and around August 201, III stated that KK had no knowledge of who withdrawn the said cash due to the business registration certificate of EE and the account of the business operator, etc.

(3) On November 29, 2010, FFF was registered as a business operator on December 31, 201, and was ex officio closed on December 31, 2011, and was KRW 4.39 billion. However, during the first period of 2012, FF increased the sales amount of KRW 19.75 billion. On the other hand, the amount of the first period of 2012 purchase was approximately KRW 25.5 million. At the time of the investigation of the R&D regional tax office, FFF was in a state of leaving the door, door, and door, without permission, left in the workplace without paying value-added tax.

JJ, the representative of the FFF, had no experience in engaging in the scrap metal wholesale business before commencing the FF. At the request of MM, the J commenced the business after registering the FFFF’s business. From the end of 2011, the actual operator of the FFF was LL, MM, but, until December 201, J, LL, and MM were either 10 to 150 million won from NN and KK, and supplied NFF’s name to the customer, including the Plaintiff, at the request of NFFF, the actual operator of the FFFF had been engaged in the scrap metal business, such as small-scale scrap metal and delivery to the customer. However, J, LL, and MM received from NN and KK each KRW 100,000 to 150,000,0000 from the account under the name of the customer, and supplied NFF to the Plaintiff, etc. at the request of NFK’s account.

JJ, LL and MM stated that they did not have any direct transaction with the Plaintiff, and that they did not supply scrap metal to the Plaintiff at the seat of the FFFF’s workplace.

(4) NN on June 25, 2015, NN or KK submitted a list of false sales tax invoices to the customer, including the Plaintiff, in collusion with III, the representative of EE in the name of Busan High Court on June 25, 2015;

In the FF FF’s name, the lower court convicted the Plaintiff of facts constituting an offense, such as “a false tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff.” However, the lower court rendered a false tax invoice in collusion with HB, the representative of HBB, which was the Plaintiff, but it was in fact issued a tax invoice in the name of a third party other than its own name, and that the supplier does not fall under Article 10(3)1 and 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act because the supplier issued the tax invoice in the name of a third party, not the supplier, but did not issue the tax invoice. In addition, the lower court found that NN issued the tax invoice in the name of HB’s representative of HB, a third party, under the name of HBB, and received a false tax invoice from the Plaintiff (Supreme Court Decision 2015No184, Jun. 25, 2015). The Plaintiff’s employee, who was the Plaintiff’s employee, issued the new tax invoice in the Plaintiff’s name, and the lower court found the NNNN’s supply of the final evidence.

C) Whether a tax invoice issued by DD is false or false

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual supplier of scrap metal stated in the tax invoice in the name of DD representative among the tax invoice of this case is a person other than PP, and that the PP merely lent the name of the issuer of the tax invoice. It is insufficient to reverse the recognition. Therefore, the tax invoice in the name of DD representative among the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier's entry is different from the fact, and thus, the Plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) ADD is a business proprietor registered as a business on February 21, 201 and closed on November 8, 2011, and reported the first and second sales of KRW 7 billion in 201 to KRW 3.984 billion, while the purchase amount is merely KRW 3.984 billion in value-added tax, and did not pay KRW 262 million in value-added tax. According to the tax invoice purchased by DD., DD purchased scrap metal mainly from KRW 20 to KRW 250 in value-added tax amount per 1km (in high soil, KRW 480 to 560 in value-added tax amount) and sold items purchased and sold, and it did not appear that DD had any further facilities or human resources to be replaced.

(2) PPP, a representative of DD, started business with a food company's business team prior to the registration of business, work as a daily collection manager, etc., and terminated the individual rehabilitation procedure following the application of DD's personal rehabilitation in around 2006. PPP consistently stated that DD's major business partners are not memory as to the details of transactions with DD's major business partners, and stated that DD's account books, purchase. sales tax invoices, passbooks, written confirmations, transport-related documents, and oil expenses were not retired or lost in all, and it was secured through a recommendation of qqq and the customer and the Internet bank's introduction, and that DD's monitoring and Internet bank's response were no more than q more than 70 billion won during the short period of eight months after DD's major business partners, but it was difficult for the PPP to attend the PP's investigation for more than 70 billion won during the short period of eight months.

(3) On February 21, 201, at the time of business registration, DD was located at the location of the place of business in Yangsan-si 937-3, Yangsan-si. However, from February 201 to August 201, 4 DD including DD from February 201 to August 201.

철 업체가 사업장 소재지로 사용한 장소이며, 위 4개 업체 중에는 DDDD의 주요 매출처인 주식회사 롤코리아스틸 및 CCCC가 포함되어 있다. DDDD은 2011. 4. 27. ##시 ##군 ##면 ##리 1322-4로 사업장 소재지를 이전하였으나, 위 토지는 공터에 펜스만 쳐져 있는 상태로 사무실로 사용한 것으로 보이는 컨테이너 박스만 2개 있을 뿐 계근 장치 등 고철 도매업을 영위하기 위한 시설이 전혀 없었고, 일부 면적에 고철을 적재한 흔적은 있으나 전체 사업장 면적 중 극히 일부분에 불과하다.

(4) On May 7, 2013, 2013, qq was convicted of the facts charged that "the representative ofCC ***** has issued false tax invoices in collusion with "&&&&&T at the Busan District Court ********". However, the above judgment acknowledged the fact that the actual operator of DD and CC is qq in collusion with the Busan District Court ***********).

D) Whether a tax invoice issued by GG is a false tax invoice

갑 제6호증, 을 제2, 11, 13 내지 16호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수 있는 아래와 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 세금계산서 중 GGGG 대표자 $$$ 명의의 세금계산서에 기재된 고철의 실제 공급자는 ###가 아닌 다른 사람이고, ###는 단지 세금계산서의 명의만을 빌려준 것에 불과하다고 봄이 타당하며, 갑 제13, 24, 25호증의 각 기재만으로는 위 인정을 뒤집기에 부족하다. 따라서 이 사건 세금계산서 중 GGGG 대표자 ### 명의의 세금계산서는 공급자의 기재가 사실과 다른 세금계산서에 해당하므로, 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

(1) GGG is an enterprise that closes its business on September 27, 2010 and closes its business on September 30, 2012, and the reported amount of sales for the second taxable period of value-added tax in 201 is KRW 28,7820,000; the reported amount of purchase is KRW 0,000; the reported amount of sales for the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2012 is KRW 1.377,932,00; the reported amount of purchase is KRW 9,850,000; and the report on sales and purchase for the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2012 was not filed.

(2) GGGG의 대표자인 ###는 불법 사행성게임장을 운영하다가 경찰 단속에 적발되어 2011. 12. 29.자로 기소중지되었고, 고철 도.소매업을 영위할 만한 자력이 없는 것으로 보인다. GGGG의 매출처 대부분은 수도권에 있는데, 그들 모두 &&&과 거래하였을 뿐 GGGG의 대표자 ###는 알지 못하고, 인천 ##구에 거주하는 @@@으로부터 세금계산서를 교부받았다. ### 명의의 계좌로 물품대금이 입금되면 즉시 현금으로 인출되었고, @@@이 사용한 체크카드의 결제대금으로도 인출되었다.

(3) GGGG의 사업장 소재지인 00시 0000구 00동 175-15 토지는 약 20평의 주택가 공터로 진입로가 협소한데, 2012. 3. 이전에는 이용도가 '$$환경'이라는 상호로 재활용 수거업을 영위하였고, 그 이후에는 @@@이 생활쓰레기 중 재활용이 가능한 것을 선별하는 장소로 사용하였다. 위 사업장 소재지의 임대인 &&&은 '2010. 10.경 ###에게 위 사업장 소재지를 보증금 200만 원, 차임 월 20만 원으로 하여 임대하기로 하였으나, ###는 위 보증금을 지급하지 아니한 채 차임만 1~2회 가량 지급하고 갑자기 사라졌다'고 진술하였다.

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

A) Relevant legal principles

Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax shall not

The fact that there is no negligence on the part of a person who asserts the deduction or refund of an input tax amount should be proven (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

(B) whether good faith, without fault, is related to BBB, EE, FF;

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff did not know that the supplier listed in the tax invoice in the name of BB, EE, and FFF is different from the actual supplier, and whether there was no negligence due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know, and in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Plaintiff’s business type of BB, EE, FFF, and the type of business, whether the representative took part in the transaction, and the contents of the judgment in the OO’s confirmation as to OO, and the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the entire purport of the arguments, the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 9, 11, 12, 24, and 25 included in the above evidence are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was not aware of the above facts, and that there was no negligence due to the failure to know, and there was no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) 원고의 부산지점 영업과장인 OOO은 BBBB, EEEE, FFFFF의 사업자등록증을 교부받았고, 각 사업장소재지에서 대표자인 HHH, III, JJJ을만났다고 진술한다. 그러나 OOO은 BBBB, EEEE, FFFFF과 거래하기 전에도 NNN과 고철 납품 거래를 하였고, @@@@(대표자 &&&) 및 $$$$(대표자 ***) 명의의 세금계산서를 발급받았었는데, NNN과 이미 거래를 하던 중 NNN으로부터 새로운 업체로의 방문을 요청받고 처음 BBBB의 사업장 소재지를 방문하였고, 그 후 다시 NNN으로부터 새로운 업체 명의로 매출세금계산서를 발급하여 주겠다는 제안을 받고 EEEE의 사업장 소재지를 방문하였으며, KKK으로부터 새로운 업체의 물건을 소개시켜 주겠다는 제안을 받고 FFFFF의 사업장 소재지를 방문하였다. OOO은 BBBB, EEEE, FFFFF 명의의 세금계산서를 교부받으면서도 그 대표자인 HHH, III, JJJ과 업무 협의를 하지 않은 채 NNN과 고철 납품과 관련된 업무 협의를 하였고, KKK과 세금계산서 발급 및 물품대금 지급과 관련된 업무 협의를 하였으며, OOO은 KKK으로부터 '자신이 FFFFF을 바지로 내세워 운영하고 거래를 한다'라는 말을 듣기도 하였다.

(2) 위 ####는 세금체납으로 2010. 10. 31. 직권폐업되었는데, 그럼에도 OOO은 ####가 있던 자리에 다시 설립된 &&&&과 고철거래를 하였고, &&&& 역시 세금체납으로 2011. 9. 27. 직권폐업되었음에도 OOO은 BBBB, EEEE, FFFFF과 고철거래를 하였다. 위 5개의 업체들은 모두 NNN, KKK 등이 명의를 빌려 운영한 업체이고, 그 사업장 소재지 또한 동일하거나 가까웠으며, 그 영업기간 또한 앞서 본 바와 같이 단기간인데, 동일한 사람과 거래하면서 서로 다른 5개의 사업자 명의로 세금계산서를 발급받는 것은 거래관행상 상당히 이례적이라고 할 것임에도, OOO은 BBBB, EEEE, FFFFF의 대표자가 실제 공급자인지 확인하기 위한 아무런 조치를 취하지 않았다.

(3) Since the fact that the supply structure of the scrap metal industry is complicated and frequent, it is necessary to pay attention to whether a supplier of the scrap metal business is an actual supplier. In particular, the Plaintiff operated the scrap metal wholesale and retail business from around 2009 to May 201, and the OO operated the scrap metal retail business in the AAAA Gu company for about three years from around 2008 to around 201. From June 201, it seems that the head of the Plaintiff’s Busan branch office is in office, and the head of the Plaintiff’s Busan branch office has been well aware of the transaction status through “data widely existing in the domestic scrap metal industry”.

C) Whether good faith and without fault with respect to DD

The plaintiff was unaware of the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier listed in the tax invoice in the name of DD, and was not negligent in not knowing that the supplier was not aware of such difference, and the type of the business of D, whether the representative was involved in the transaction, and the location of the place of the business.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the purport of the entire evidence presented earlier, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not know the above facts, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) It can be seen that the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, but the Plaintiff’s employee met the PPP for the representative of DD, visited the location of the DD’s business, and gone through the process of confirming whether DD’s PPP was the actual supplier of DD.

No material can be found.

(2) 오히려, 원고가 DDDD로부터 세금계산서를 발급받은 2011. 6. 30.부터 2011. 9. 30. 당시 DDDD의 사업장 소재지였던 @@시 @@군 @@면 @@리 1322-4에는 고철 도매업을 영위하기 위한 시설이 전혀 없었던 것으로 보이는바, 원고의 직원은 DDDD의 사업장을 직접 방문하는 것만으로도 DDDD이 고철의 실제 공급자가 아니라는 사실을 쉽게 확인할 수 있었을 것으로 보인다.

(3) Even upon examining the statements of the PPP, the personnel in charge of the business parties, including the Plaintiff, appear to have been engaged in qqs and scrap metal transactions rather than PP. Since the PP only was conducted by issuing a tax invoice as a representative in the name of DD, the personnel in charge of the business parties who transacted with DD could have easily known that the PP is not a real supplier.

D) Whether good faith and without fault with respect to GGG

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s failure to know that there was a difference between the supplier and the actual supplier listed in the tax invoice in the name of GGG, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s failure to know that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier and the actual supplier, and in light of the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier, including the type of business, the capacity of the representative, and the location of the place of business of the GG as well as the overall purport of the arguments, the entries in the evidence Nos. 13, 24, and 25 are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the aforementioned facts, and that there was no other evidence to support this.

(1) 원고의 직원 RRR이 GGGG의 사업자등록증을 교부받은 것은 사실로 보인다. 그러나 RRR은 ##시 ##구 ##동 재개발 아파트 현장에서 XXX을 처음 만나 연락처를 주고받았고, XXX으로부터 연락을 받고 고철 거래를 시작하게 되었는데, GGGG의 대표자 YYY와 알지 못하고 만난 사실도 없으면서 YYY 명의의 세금계산서를 발급받았고, YYY에게 연락하여 고철 거래에 대하여 확인한 사실도 없다.

(2) GGGG의 사업장 소재지는 진입로가 협소한 약 20평의 주택가 공터로서 원고가 GGGG으로부터 세금계산서를 발급받은 2012. 3. 14.부터 2012. 6. 30. 당시위 공터는 ###이 생활쓰레기 중 재활용이 가능한 것을 선별하는 용도로 사용한 것으로 보이는바, RRR은 GGGG의 위 사업장을 방문하여 보는 것만으로도 GGGG이 고철의 실제 공급자가 아니라는 것을 쉽게 알 수 있었을 것이다.

(3) The RR was aware that the land at issue was supplying the Plaintiff with scrap metal generated at the site of the reconstruction construction for the R&A and the main apartment in the R&A. However, the removal of the reconstruction construction was contracted by the corporation, and the corporation did not pay in kind the steel by-products generated at the time of the removal to the % representative of the % representative of the % representative of the dismantling construction for the reconstruction construction, and the corporation did not pay in kind the construction cost for the steel by-products generated at the time of the removal to the % representative of the % representative of the % representative of the % representative of the % representative of the dismantling construction for the reconstruction construction. There is no fact that GGGG purchased the scrap metal generated at the construction site. The RR did not confirm where the source of the scrap metal stated in the tax invoice in the name of the GGG

3) Whether the imposition of an unfair under-reported additional tax is illegal

A) Relevant legal principles

In light of the language, structure, etc. of relevant provisions, such as Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same), even if a taxpayer obtained a false certification and under-reported the tax base, the case where a taxpayer under-reported the tax base by an improper means cannot be deemed to fall under the case where a taxpayer was unaware of the false certification, and the taxpayer did not know that the tax base was under-reported by gross negligence. Moreover, in order for the taxpayer to fall under the case where a taxpayer under-reported the input tax base by an unreasonable method under Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same), such act should be deemed to fall under the case where a taxpayer under-reported the tax base by either filing the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of tax payable, or receiving the refund of the tax amount under 15.

B) Determination

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 13, 19 through 22, Eul evidence No. 11-1, and Eul evidence No. 12, i.e., the plaintiff appears to have actually supplied the amount of scrap metal stated in the tax invoice of this case to AAA as the old unit company of AA, and the unit price of scrap metal stated in the tax invoice of this case cannot be deemed to have been different from the unit price of scrap metal generally purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff seems to have paid the full amount of the purchase price and its value added tax stated in the tax invoice of this case to the account held in the name of the original purchaser, and ③ NN and KN did not appear to have known that BB, EE, FF, etc. were to be closed without paying value added tax to BB, EE, and 12, and ④ The plaintiff could not be found to have received the tax invoice of this case from the original purchaser, even if it was not found otherwise by the plaintiff.

Therefore, in imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff, the general under-reported penalty tax under Article 47-3(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes should be imposed, not the unfair under-reported penalty tax under Article 47-3(2). As such, the part exceeding the amount of general under-reported penalty tax is unlawful.

C) a reasonable amount of tax

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 10-3, Eul evidence 10-4, Eul evidence 17-1 through Eul evidence 17-3 among the dispositions of this case, 12,893,260 won (i.e., 32,23,150 won x 40%) among the dispositions of this case, and 163,74,701 won (i.e., 163,701 won) as additional tax for underreporting the second period of 2011 (i.e., 409,436,753 x 40% x 40% x 40% x 17,832,689 won (i.e., 294, 581, 724 x 40%) as additional tax for underreporting the second period of 209, 2014).

It can be recognized that the general under-reported penalty tax, which is not an unfair under-reported penalty tax, is the 1st, 3,223,315 won (=32,23,150 won x 10%) in 201, 40,943,675 won in 201 (=409,436,753 won x 10%) in 201, and 1st, 29,458,172 won in 201 (=294,581,724 x 10%).

D) Sub-committee

Ultimately, among the instant dispositions, the part exceeding KRW 50,219,215 (=59,89,160 - 12,893,260 won + 3,223,315 won in the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 737,856,360 in the imposition of KRW 737,856,360 in the year 201 (=737,856,360 + 163,74,701 + 40,943,675 won in the imposition of KRW 514,987,70 in the year 201) and the part exceeding 615,025,334 won in the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 737,856,360 in the imposition of KRW - 163,74,70 in the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 40,943,70 in the imposition of KRW 126,5397

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.