Early High Court Decision 2015J 4470 ( December 07, 2015)

propriety of a disposition imposing value-added tax, etc. on a false tax invoice;

In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that a bona fide trading party has fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide trading party, such as the failure to verify a fact different from the address of the place of business, even though the claimant received three times the amount of scrap metal purchased from the existing main purchaser from the drown, etc., the claim company did not err by regarding the issue tax invoice as a false tax invoice and imposing value-added tax.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2016Guhap61366 ( December 01, 2016)

Transport engineers who received "a dispatch" at each purchase office and supplied them to ii.m. in the name of the Plaintiff

confirmations, photographs of the appearance of a business establishment no longer than bb whose date is known, and the interests with the Plaintiff.

Now, it is merely a fact-finding certificate, etc. prepared by the representative Kimh of B, and only that of this case

It is difficult to view that there was a transaction, such as closure between the purchaser and the Plaintiff, and otherwise support such transaction.

There is no objective evidence.

(2) Whether the plaintiff is "the party to the transaction with good faith and negligence"

(A) A person who is supplied with another tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice.

The name of the tax invoice was not known, and the tax invoice was not negligent.

Unless there are circumstances, the person who receives the input tax shall not be entitled to deduct or refund the input tax, and the person who receives it shall

The input tax amount shall be deducted or refunded in the absence of negligence on the part of the person who was unaware of his name.

The claimant must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

(B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the purport of the entire argument in the evidence as seen earlier is final.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence cited by the Plaintiff

solely on the basis that the Plaintiff was unaware of this part of the purchase tax invoice’s name.

It is insufficient to recognize that there is no negligence due to failure to know that there is no negligence, and otherwise evidence to prove it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit in this regard.

① The Plaintiff, from April 12, 2002, engaged in wholesale and retail business of non-metallic metals, including waste Dong, etc.

The normal structure and distribution route of the supply of the closed Dong, and the general forms of transactions or methods of the industry, and data;

The plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the actual state of transactions and the risk of transactions.

Before being supplied with waste transit, etc. in the future, the transit route of the relevant goods shall be verified in advance, and the transaction thereof shall be conducted.

Whether the wife is equipped with basic equipment, such as a valley, open storage site, transportation vehicle, etc. for the disposal of waste vehicles, etc.

Aa industry without undergoing such verification procedures, even though such verification procedures are required to be confirmed; and

B It seems that the supplier received each of the above purchase tax invoices which the supplier entered falsely from B.

② Even if the Plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate of a Aa industry and a B, the company

A business registration certificate shall include ascertaining taxpayers of value-added tax, etc. and securing taxation data;

the head of the competent tax office by requiring the operator to make a registrationd office to the head of the competent tax office.

certificate proving the registration of the business is not issued to the business operator.

(2) It is not reasonable to acknowledge that the applicant satisfies the qualifications or requirements for operating his business.

Ro (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Taxes that a supplier enters falsely.

The invoice shall be issued and verified as to whether the supplier's business is registered;

No one can be deemed to have fulfilled his duty of care.

③ The Plaintiff is identical with a copy of a business registration certificate, a copy of a passbook, a name box, etc. from a A industry and a B.

only receive a minimum formal document, and through visiting a place of business or visiting a place of business, etc.;

It can be seen that the purchasing entity confirms whether the purchasing entity is a business entity that can actually generate sales and purchase.

there is no objective evidence to deem that an effort was made by the Plaintiff. In addition, aa industry, and abb are the Plaintiff.

(1) No company shall be engaged in the business immediately before the transaction, and no company shall be engaged in the business related to the purchase of scrap metal before the transaction.

(2) The Plaintiff’s sales of scrap metal in a short period of time with the said purchaser; and

had been.

4) The Plaintiff, upon complying with its assertion, is aa industry through ii steel, the seller of self-dd’s sales.

further, the plaintiff was taking a measurement of scrap metal, etc. provided by B, and the plaintiff was taking a measurement on the lower directly.

Issuing and verifying a certificate or at least the date, vehicle number, customer, name, weight, etc. on the site;

In addition, a transaction by identifying information such as contact address or route of the transported article;

There is no objective data to regard that the person has tried to verify whether the person is true or not.

4. Conclusion

Thus, among the lawsuit in this case, the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 320,495,090 for 1 January 2013 is subject to imposition.

267,427,128 won or more to seek revocation, and 2nd value-added tax in 2013

1,630,235,450 won for revocation of the part exceeding 1,351,723,420 won of the disposition imposing 1,350 won

Sector: Imposition of Value-Added Tax of 173,268,760 won for one year 2014 exceeds KRW 142,733,231 won;

The part demanding revocation of the part is unlawful and dismissed, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Therefore, it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Co. ***

○ Head of tax office

2016.28

December 01, 201

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant limited to July 9, 2015 against the Plaintiff:

A. A portion seeking revocation of the part exceeding KRW 267,427,128 in the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 320,495,090 for one year 2013

B. A claim for revocation of the part exceeding KRW 1,351,723,420 of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,630,235,450 of value-added tax for two years, 2013

(c) A part seeking revocation of the part exceeding 142,733,231 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 173,268,760, 2014;

Each rejection shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of KRW 320,495,090, KRW 230,235,450, KRW 1730, and KRW 221,054,660, and KRW 20,357,010, each of the disposition of imposition of KRW 20,495,09, and KRW 20,357,010, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015 by the former Defendant for the year 2013, KRW 173,268,760, and KRW 221,054,660, and corporate tax for the year 20,357,010 for the year 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 12,070,584,010 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) from the Plaintiff, a corporation established on April 12, 2002 for the purpose of collecting, processing, manufacturing, selling, etc. of scrap metal and non-ferrous metal, and from the Plaintiff’s total supply price of KRW 12,070,584,010 (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant buyers”) as listed in the table below in the taxable period of value added tax from January 2013 to January 2014, and issued value added tax after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

B. The Defendant calculates the amount of taxation by denying the deduction of the pertinent input tax amount, on the grounds that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice without a real transaction.

On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a revised notice of KRW 320,495,090, KRW 1,630,235,450, and KRW 173,268,760, corporate tax for the business year 2014, KRW 221,054,660, and corporate tax for the business year 20,357,010, respectively, for the Plaintiff on July 19, 2013.The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for adjudication on August 19, 2015, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said claim on December 17, 2015.

D. Since then, the Defendant accepted the recommendation for adjustment of the full bench on October 17, 2016 in the proceeding of the instant lawsuit, and issued each value-added tax on the premise that “general or sub-value-added tax” is applied, and subsequently, issued the disposition of imposing value-added tax in excess of the amount calculated as above, namely, the part exceeding KRW 267,427,128 among the disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 320,495,090 on January 1, 2013; the part exceeding KRW 1,630,235,450 among the disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 1,630,231,723,420 among the disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 1,63,268,760 on January 2014; the remaining part of the disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 142,733,231 among the disposition of imposing value-added tax (hereinafter “the remaining part”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part requesting revocation with respect to the reduced portion of this case is legitimate

Ex officio, we examine whether the part concerning the claim for revocation with respect to the reduction of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate.

A disposition of reduction or correction is not an originald tax disposition or a separate tax disposition, but an originald tax disposition or a separate tax disposition is modified, and thereby causes favorable effect to the taxpayer of the tax payment, namely, partial revocation of the tax amount. Accordingly, the subject of an appeal litigation is the remainder of the originald tax disposition or a separate tax disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8904, Nov. 15, 1996).

On October 17, 2016, the Defendant’s correction of the imposition disposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) thus, the subject of an appeal is deemed to be the remainder without being revoked by the said reduction order; (b) thus, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax of KRW 320,495,090, which exceeds KRW 267,427,128, among the imposition disposition of KRW 267,427,128; (c) the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the imposition disposition of KRW 1,630,235,450, which exceeds KRW 1,630,235,423,420, among the imposition disposition of KRW 1,633,268,760, which is value-added tax of KRW 173,760, which is value-added tax of KRW 1733,733,231, which is subject to revocation; and thus, is deemed unlawful.

3. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, as indicated in the instant tax invoice, actually traded non-ferrous metals, such as closing, etc. between the purchaser and each other. Thus, the said tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice for a processed transaction.

(2) Even if the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice with false content, the Plaintiff did not know that it was a disguised business operator at the time of trading with each purchaser of this case, and was not negligent in not knowing that it was a disguised business operator, and thus, the Defendant’s each disposition of this case

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i)a industry;

① The A industry, starting on January 20, 2013, issued sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 22,964,00,000, total value of supply during the taxable period of value-added tax from January 20, 2013 to February 2, 2013. However, the corresponding purchase tax invoices were deemed to receive only KRW 4,320,000,000, and were closed ex officio on December 31, 2013.

② As a result of the tax authority’s on-site investigation, the location of the Aa industry (in c. c. c. d. 202) was confirmed to remain vacant without any separate facility.

③ If the Plaintiff deposits money with the account in the name of the representative Kime of the industry, aa industry appears to have transferred the money to another deposit account or another deposit account in the name of Kime (hereinafter referred to as a “ffffing”) (hereinafter referred to as a “stock company”).

④ From January 2013 to January 2014, a industry appears to have a covering only for purchasing a closed operation, etc., other than a transportation company, during the period from January 2013 to January 2014. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhn is an entity that has already been accused from a tax authority as “data Prize.”

(2) b.

① Moreover, B, upon commencement of the business on January 2, 2014, issued sales tax invoices worth KRW 13,737,000,000 in total for the taxable period of value-added tax on the first half of the year 2014, but the corresponding purchase tax invoices were deemed to have received only the amount of KRW 148,00,000, and were closed ex officio on September 12, 2014.

② As a result of the tax authority’s on-site investigation, the location of BB’s location (the entrance of Pyeongtaek-si 64) was closed, and it was confirmed that the entrance was only the beginning and the trace of the scrap metal or office was not found. Rather, the fence was indicated as “ggggg company”.

③ If the Plaintiff deposits money into the account in the name of the representative Kimhh of further B, it seems that the said money was immediately withdrawn in cash or transferred to another account in the name of Kimh and then that it was withdrawn in cash again.

④ Moreover, the purchaser who purchased scrap and non-stock during the value-added tax period of the first half of 2014 is not identified at all.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice is “other tax invoice different from the fact”

(A) Article 39(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12851, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) provides that an input tax amount in a case where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. However, the meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, where there is a person to whom such entries belong only under the name of the income, income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation, and where there is another person to whom such matters belong, the person to whom such matters are in fact belong shall be liable for tax payment, and the tax law shall apply in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, notwithstanding the formal descriptions such as a transaction contract prepared between the parties to the goods or service, where the contents of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the actual supplier, the person to whom the goods or service is supplied, and the person who actually supplies the goods or service shall be paid 70.

Therefore, even if there is a transaction of supplying goods, a tax invoice issued by the supplier as a so-called so-called “illegal transaction” between the nominal owner and the nominal owner of the tax invoice shall be deemed to constitute the “illegal tax invoice” as seen earlier.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the above facts, the instant tax invoice received from each of the instant purchasing agencies constitutes “tax invoice with different contents”, and the evidence and circumstances cited by the Plaintiff are insufficient to reverse it solely based on the evidence and circumstances cited by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

1. The representative Kime of a industry, the representative Kimh of a BB seems to have no experience in working for a business related to high and non-ferrouss, and the Plaintiff was engaged in a business immediately before commencing the transaction with the Plaintiff. As a result, each purchaser was in arrears with value-added tax of a reasonable amount.

② Each purchaser of the instant case appears to have not been equipped with facilities to be deemed to have actually operated the business at the place of business recorded on the business registration certificate, and only purchased stocks excessively less than sales with the tax authority at the time of issuing the instant tax invoice.

③ In addition, there is no objective evidence to deem that each of the purchasing parties of the instant case engaged in closing the Plaintiff’s workplace or night room, and the Plaintiff stated that it was directly subordinate to the Steel Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “II Steel”), which is the seller, but there was no explanation to understand the progress and circumstances.

④ The form of money transaction between the Plaintiff and each of the instant buyers, in particular, is similar to the typical form of financial transaction conducted to avoid reporting to a financial institution, after withdrawing money in cash immediately after deposit or distributing money to another account by each of the instant buyers.

⑤ The evidence cited by the Plaintiff is an internal document or a document prepared by the Plaintiff.