It is insufficient to conclude that a tax invoice received by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff, who received a business registration certificate, identification card, and a copy of the business account from the customer, started the transaction, and prepared the fraternity in the course of the transaction, and it is not found that there was a special manipulation.

Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Daegu District Court 2014Guhap498 ( January 23, 2015)

○ ○

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

December 3, 2014

January 23, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part regarding the revocation claim regarding the part exceeding ○○○○○, among the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2010, shall be dismissed.

2. On July 2, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff on July 2, 2012 by the first quarter ○○○○○○○○ in the first quarter of 2011 is revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax No. 2010 against the Plaintiff on July 2, 2012 and the imposition of value-added tax No. 2000 on July 2, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff opened the business with the trade name of ○○○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and engaged in the wholesale business of non-metallic metals. On June 27, 201, the Plaintiff established AA and became a business entity and continued to operate the same business.

B. The Plaintiff received the following tax invoices from BB (hereinafter referred to as “BB”), CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”), and DD (hereinafter referred to as “DD”) during the second and first taxable periods in 2010 and 201.

C. The result of the investigation conducted by the Defendant on May 3, 2012 to May 31, 2012 by the Defendant on the suspicion of the Plaintiff’s material, and the Plaintiff’s above.

On July 2, 2012, each value-added tax (including additional tax) on the second period of 2010 and the first period of 00 ○○○○○ in 2011 against the Plaintiff was corrected and notified (hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition”) after deducting the relevant input tax amount by judging the supplier’s entry as a false tax invoice.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on September 27, 2012. The Daegu Director of the Regional Tax Office rendered a decision to re-calculated the tax base and tax amount according to the result of re-assessment on the grounds that the investigation was not conducted on the grounds that the investigation was not conducted on the facts.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation on November 7, 2012 to December 12, 2012, and confirmed the transaction between the Plaintiff and DD as a normal transaction, and recognized the first-term tax invoice for the first-term portion received from DD in 201 as a normal tax invoice for the first-term portion in 2011. On December 17, 2012, the Defendant revised the first-term amount of value-added tax for the first-term portion in 201 among the initial dispositions to ○○○○○ (=○○○○○ KRW - the original amount of tax) by deeming it as a different tax invoice as in the previous dispositions, and then, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the correction of the said reduction.

F. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff re-appealed and requested for adjudication on March 15, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request on December 30, 2013.

G. Meanwhile, in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of the year 2010 (Ulsan District Court 2013Guhap684), BB cannot be deemed to have issued a tax invoice without a transaction of goods, the judgment of claimant was rendered on February 13, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 25, 2014.

H. Accordingly, on April 4, 2014, the Defendant recognized the tax invoice for the second period portion of 2010, which the Plaintiff received from BB, as a normal tax invoice, and corrected the amount of value-added tax for the second period portion of 2010 among the initial dispositions (i.e., ○○○○○○○○○○○, and the original unit saving) by reducing the amount of value-added tax for the second period of 2010 among the initial dispositions (hereinafter referred to as “the disposition of imposition for the second period portion of 2010 and the first period portion of 2011”) by reducing the amount of value-added tax for the second period portion of 2010.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 8, 9, 24, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (each number);

Each entry, the whole purport of the pleading, including

2. We examine ex officio whether the revocation claim on the part exceeding ○○○○ in the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of the second period of the instant lawsuit in 2010 was lawful. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to reduce the value-added tax for the second period of the first period of the instant lawsuit to ○○○○○○○○○○ (=○○○○○ KRW - KRW ○○○○○, and KRW ○○○○○○○○) in the first disposition on April 4, 2014. As seen earlier, the part of the claim for revocation on the part exceeding the original KRW ○○○○○○○○○ in the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of the second period of the value-added tax for the second period of the instant lawsuit

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Generally, the burden of proof regarding the fact of taxation requirement is imposed on the tax authority; the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on the premise that BB and CCC is so-called “data,” but the Plaintiff was issued a non-prosecution disposition (non-prosecution disposition) on the BB and CCC; and the Plaintiff was supplied with actual goods from BB and CCC. In light of the fact that the instant tax invoice does not constitute a tax invoice different from the fact that it does not involve real transactions.

2) At the time of commencement of the transaction with BB and CCC, the Plaintiff confirms whether the Plaintiff is a normal business operator by receiving the business registration certificate, representative identification card, name card, and account copy, etc., and the Plaintiff directly visited the place of business at the time of the transaction with BB, or verified the items by telephone, and if the goods are delivered to the Plaintiff’s office after completing the measurement certificate by taking up the goods from BB, the Plaintiff traded the defective goods by determining the supply value by multiplying the fixed quantity after the reduction of the goods by the unit price for each item. In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff, even at the time of the transaction with CCC, prepared a detailed statement of transaction and delivers the goods to the Plaintiff’s workplace, the Plaintiff traded the goods by way of remitting’s transfer to the CCC account. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is a party with good faith and negligence with the duty of care to receive the instant

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 1 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

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

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), an input tax amount shall not be deducted or refundable unless there are special circumstances where a person who actually supplies and a supplier under a tax invoice differently states the necessary entry items under Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, i.e., “where a person who was supplied was unaware of the nominal entry of the tax invoice,” and there is no negligence on the part of the supplier. In such cases, the supplier shall be deemed as a person who actually performs a transaction of supplying goods or services to a person who is not a person who forms a nominal legal relationship with the supplier, but rather a person who actually performs a transaction of supplying goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du538, Aug. 20, 2014; 96Da48397, Mar. 28, 1997).

(b)the tax invoice received from BB;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, BB was established on May 9, 2006 for the purpose of production and mid-term lending of aggregate at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but actually closed the business, sold scrap metal from April 201 to April 14, 201, and as a result of the investigation by the suspect on the data No. 14-10, Jun. 14, 2011, BB was a company that supplied and received the tax invoice on a short-term short-term high-term high-term high-term sales and purchase, and filed the EE with the representative of B. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the tax invoice was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff’s submission of evidence No. 3 through 7,9, supplier, 12, 13, 24, and 5 of the Value-Added Tax is insufficient.

① Even based on the results of the investigation of suspected suspicions on BB by the head of the racing tax office’s data, BB leased the site of 3,209 square meters, building 1,103 square meters on the national highway No. ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and owned 1,103 square meters, and continuously continued the business while employing one female employee, two drivers, and two workers, during the investigation period. In addition, BB reported about KRW 00,000,000,000,000 won during the second taxable period of 2010.

② The Plaintiff started the transaction after receiving a copy of the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, identification card (motor vehicle driver’s license), and bank account in the name of BB from EE, and entered the accounts in the process of being supplied with the actual goods, and there is a credit purchase prohibition statement that is not found to have been specially fabricated.

③ Since the Plaintiff commenced the first transaction with BB around August 2010, the Plaintiff was engaged in a large amount of transactions in the first, second and first taxable periods in 2011. Since AA was incorporated, from the second and second taxable periods in 2011, the Plaintiff was engaged in transactions in the name of AAA in the name of the Plaintiff and AAAAA in 201. The Defendant himself does not seem to be particularly responsible for the transactions conducted during the second and second taxable periods in 2011 and 2012.

④ In the case of so-called a so-called 's business entity' or a 's signboard business' in charge of preventing damage from being transferred to normal scrap metal business entity, even if the transaction of a wide coal business is found to be false because it was located in the middle of the transaction phase between the so-called 'large coal business' and the normal scrap metal business entity, it is a tendency to immediately withdraw the total amount of the sales payment or transfer the sales payment to the actual operator, etc. However, in the case of BB, there is no such financial flow in the above-mentioned form.

(5) EB’s representative EE was accused of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on April 30, 2012 (Plsan District Prosecutors’ Office 201) (No. ○○○○○○○ in 201).

(6) In the lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of the year 2010, which was filed by BB against the head of the Ulsan District Tax Office (Ulsan District Court 2013Guhap684), the judgment of claimant was rendered and confirmed as it is. Accordingly, the defendant recognized the second period tax invoice of the tax invoice received by BB from BB as a normal tax invoice and decided to reduce the amount of the tax by ex officio.

C) Tax invoices received from CCC

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser, such as the closure of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice, was a third party, not CCC, and CCC merely constitutes “the so-called “data” that only issues a tax invoice to the Plaintiff under its own name,” and the testimony of Gap’s evidence Nos. 4, 7, 11, and 14 (including each number), and witness FF is insufficient to reverse the recognition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from CCC constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① As a result of the tax investigation conducted by the director of the South Daegu Tax Office with respect to the CCC, GGG, the representative of CCC’s business registration certificate, is merely the so-called “bane president,” and the actual operator was found HH.

② On November 2, 2010, CCC issued high-amount sales tax invoices on a short-term basis, including approximately KRW ○○○○○○○ billion in the second period of 2010, approximately KRW ○○○○○○○ billion in the first period of 2011, and approximately KRW ○○○○○○ billion in the second period of 2011, and immediately closed on December 19, 201, when one year has elapsed since the commencement of the business.

③ At around 2011, WWW, which had been operating a business in the vicinity of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a place of business of the CCC, was written with a confirmation letter to the effect that: (a) there was no shape that large vehicles load and load goods or set up a stock in a lux; and (b) there was no shape that sets up and classify the luxat at the end of the place of business; (c) however, there was no 3,4 persons who wear laves, other than working clothes, at a container, and there was no luxous nax.

④ CCC의 매입처 관련자들은 모두 허위세금계산서교부 등 혐의로 고발되었는데, ㉠ JJJ의 실제 운영자 KKK은 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)죄로 징역 6년 및 벌금 710억 원을 선고받고 그 판결이 확정되었으며(부산고등법원 2014노290호, 상고취하로 확정됨), ㉡ LLL의 실제 운영자인 MMM은 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)죄로 징역 4년 및 벌금 ○○○○억 원, 명의상 대표자인 NNN은 같은 죄로 징역 3년에 집행유예 5년 및 벌금 60억 원을 선고받고 그 판결이 확정되었으며(대구지방법원 서부지원 2011고합264호, 대구고등법원 2012노161호), ㉢ OOO의 실제 운영자 TTT은 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)죄로 징역 3년 및 벌금 36억 원을 선고받고 그 판결이 확정되었으며(대구지방법원 서부지원 2012고합169호, 대구고등법원 2012노402호, 대법원 2012도14702호), ㉣ JJJ 관련자 PPP 및 QQQ 관련자 RRR에 대하여는 기소중지처분이 내려졌다.

⑤ The CCC immediately transferred most of the sales amount to OO, SS, TT, etc. on the day it received the sales amount from the Plaintiff, etc. to the corporate account. This is very exceptional that it is difficult to view it in the form of fund management ordinarily conducted by a normal business operator.

(6) On the other hand, CCC, HH, and GG received processed tax invoices from SS andOO without real transactions, and filed a charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoices) that the processed tax invoices were issued to the Plaintiff et al. without real transactions, and was subject to a disposition for suspicion of insufficient evidence on July 12, 2012 (Article 13051 of the Seo-gu District Public Prosecutor’s Office, 2012). However, on the other hand, the fact that CCC received and delivered processed tax invoices without real transactions is related to the fact that the actual supplier of the tax invoices issued by CCC is not CCC. Thus, the grounds for non-prosecution disposition and the grounds for disposition of this case cannot be directly related, and the court’s decision that purchased the processed tax invoices with respect to the prosecutor’s non-prosecution decision without real suspicion cannot be readily concluded to have been subject to criminal punishment on the grounds that it was not subject to prosecution by the prosecutor, but can not be deemed to have been subject to criminal punishment against CCC 1984.

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

In the absence of special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless he/she was aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier.

A. A person must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Therefore, according to each of the following facts: (a) whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal fact in the issuance of a tax invoice by CCC; (b) whether the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the nominal fact; (c) the Plaintiff received a business registration certificate, identification card (motor vehicle driver’s license); and (d) the Plaintiff received a copy and name card (including each number) from GCC representative GGGG; and (e) remitted the transaction price to the CCC account. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice issued by CCC was closed from CCC and did not know of the fact that it was false; and (d) there was no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. In light of the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the other party did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff was not negligent in conducting an investigation or investigation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the other party did not know of the actual intent of the transaction.

① The closed-dong is a high-priced waste resources collected once again through a small and medium-scale collection, and there are many cases of transactions without receipt of tax invoices in the course of transactions for a large scale collection, and it seems that the cash transaction, such as immediately account transfer, is generally conducted in order to meet the quantity of the sales office due to a lack of supply compared to demand, and the advance payment is also made in order to arrange the volume.

② In addition to the Plaintiff’s long-term collection and sale business of waste agreements from around 2006, the Plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the structure and distribution route of waste agreement, the general form or method of transaction in the relevant industry, and the actual condition and risk of transaction in data, on July 6, 201, on the ground that the tax invoice received from UU (VV) in the first taxable period of 2010 constituted a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier’s entry constitutes a false tax invoice.

③ Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not directly visit the place of business of the CCC at the time of commencement of the transaction with the CCC, and the Plaintiff voluntarily visited the Plaintiff through the introduction of the CCC trading office, and received a business registration certificate, identification card, name card, etc. from the GG, and subsequently made a transaction of goods from November 12, 2010.

④ The opening date stated in the CCC’s business registration certificate is “No. 2, 2010.11.2.” This is the time when the Plaintiff first traded with CCC. If such a situation is, the Plaintiff appears to have to have been in need of properly investigating whether CCC is an actual supplier.

⑤ Nevertheless, the Plaintiff was merely subject to formal verification procedures such as receiving only a copy of the business registration certificate or a copy of the passbook at the time of the first transaction, and did not visit the place of business in person to take sufficient measures for verification as to whether the actual supplier equipped with basic facilities, such as guidance, field, transportation vehicles, etc., and did not have properly verified the course of movement of the closed consent.

(6) The business registration certificate that the Plaintiff confirmed at the time of commencement of transaction with each of the purchasing places of this case is delivered to the head of competent tax office by requiring a business entity to apply for registration to the head of competent tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business in order to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax, etc. and to secure taxation data. It is not recognized that the mere certificate of business registration is merely a certificate proving the business fact and that the copy of the passbook satisfies the qualification or requirements to conduct business by itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Since the copy of the passbook was designated as the account to be deposited, in light of the reality of transactions with waste-free agreement, only

7) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was accused of having received processed tax invoices from BB, CCC, and DD without any actual transaction, and was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution on September 17, 2012 on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Article 48775 of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office in 2012). However, the aforementioned disposition of non-prosecution is related to the suspected fact that the Plaintiff received the processed tax invoices without any actual transaction, and thus, the Plaintiff is not directly related to the issue of whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and non-faith.

3) Scope of revocation

The legality of a disposition in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is determined depending on whether it exceeds a reasonable tax amount, and the parties may submit objective tax bases and materials supporting the tax amount until the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court, and shall be duly imposed by such materials.

When a legitimate tax amount is calculated, only the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount shall be revoked.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu15022, Mar. 28, 1997). If the part relating to BB of the instant disposition is excluded from taxation subject to taxation as seen earlier, the legitimate tax amount shall be ○○○○○○○ (original unit saving) as indicated in the “political tax amount in [Attachment 2] list of legitimate tax amount in 2010, and the first quarter in 2011. Therefore, among the instant disposition, the portion exceeding ○○○○○○ (original unit saving) out of the first quarter of year 2011 should be revoked as it is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation regarding the portion exceeding 00 won among the disposition imposing value-added tax on the second term portion of the lawsuit of this case in 2010 is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiff's claim excluding the above dismissed portion is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to dismiss the remainder as