Early High Court Decision 201J 0684 ( October 26, 2011)

It is reasonable to deem that a tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and that it was known or known that the tax invoice was false.

The Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff a considerable portion of the scrap metal price that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not submit any objective data to explain abnormal details of transactions as such, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the purchaser voluntarily received another tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice. It is reasonable to deem that the tax invoice was aware or could have known that it was false.

2011Guhap14709 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

XX Co., Ltd

Head of Suwon Tax Office

July 20, 2012

August 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the business year 2009 and KRW 000 of value-added tax for the first period of January 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 30, 2009, the Plaintiff, a company engaged in the wholesale retail, etc. of scrap metal, non-ferrous metals, etc., received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 000 on May 30, 2009 from ChoA (trade name: trade name); and on June 30, 2009, filed a return on the tax base and tax amount for the business year 2010 by including the value of supply in deductible expenses; and filed a return on the amount of value-added tax by deducting the total value of value-added tax of the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount for the first period of January 2010, as an input tax amount.

B. The Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice is a processing tax invoice received without a real transaction, and instead did not include 000 won in the deductible expenses for the business year 2001, but did not deduct the total value-added tax amount from the output tax amount for the first time in September 1, 2010, and paid and notified the Plaintiff an additional amount of KRW 00 and KRW 000 for the business year 2009, which deducted from the total tax amount for the first time in September 1, 2010, the corporate tax amount for the business year 2009, and the amount of value-added tax for the first time in 2009, which has increased and corrected each amount as KRW 00 for the first time in 209 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on October 14, 201, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 9, 201, but was dismissed on October 26, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-2 through 4, Gap evidence 5 and 9-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In fact, the Plaintiff purchased scrap metal equivalent to the value of supply stated in the instant tax invoice from ChoA. Even if a supplier under the instant tax invoice is not ChoA, the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party, which receives the said tax invoice with knowledge that it is material and constitutes a bona fide transaction party, and thus, constitutes a bona fide transaction party, and thus, the instant disposition that deemed the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice received without real transaction and imposes corporate tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

6. On May 6, 2009, if Gap evidence 23, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 5, the plaintiff's business registration was made under the trade name of 00-dong 00 and 00-do Do Do dong 2, but the defendant did not have any business place or machine necessary for the above 00-year Do 2's high-end 0-end 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 00's 0's 's 00'''''''''''

(2) Whether the instant tax invoice is false or not

(A) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) 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 facts. Here, meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that if there is a person to whom the entries of a tax invoice belong, only the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, belongs, and if there is another person to whom the entries actually belong, the person to whom the entries belong shall be liable for tax payment and the tax law shall be applied. In addition, it refers to cases 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, regardless of the formal descriptions of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed as to the instant case: (i) the ChoA issued the instant tax invoice without holding a specific place of business or equipment; (ii) the Plaintiff’s bank account was immediately withdrawn; and (iii) the existence of circular transactions was confirmed, such as payment to the Plaintiff’s purchaser or deposit to the Plaintiff’s bank account; and (iv) even if ChoA was accused of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as to the instant tax invoice, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the criminal intent of tax evasion, etc.; (iii) the instant tax invoice cannot be interpreted as a tax invoice consistent with the facts accompanying real transactions; and (iv) the Plaintiff purchased scrap iron from YangE, etc. on his own, but it cannot be viewed as being contradictory to the Plaintiff’s allegation that both of the instant tax invoices were issued as evidence, such as the Plaintiff’s submission of evidence to the effect that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to receive the instant tax invoice under the name of both E and the Plaintiff’s statement to the effect that there was no inconsistency in the instant tax invoice.

(3) Whether the plaintiff's good faith and negligence are recognized

(A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are unaware of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the other tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, and the supplier cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the name was entered in the name of the supplier, the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du22

(B) Based on the above legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of each of the instant tax invoices and did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of each of the instant tax invoices, and the data submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient. Rather, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff a considerable portion of the amount of the scrap metal that the Plaintiff paid to ChoA again, and the Plaintiff failed to submit objective data to clarify the abnormal details of transactions, as such, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was paid tax invoices in the name of Y (A) upon the wind that the Plaintiff purchased scrap metal from Yang E, etc. and then cancelled its business registration. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff could have sufficiently known that the said tax invoice was falsely prepared if he knew of the falsity or paid the full attention to it.

3. Conclusion

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