It is not true that the plaintiff's good faith and negligence is not recognized when receiving a false tax invoice.

In receiving the tax invoice of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent in finding that BB industry was a party to a transaction with good faith and negligence, even though it was aware of or was unaware of the existence of the actual supplier of the goods as data, or even if it was unaware of the fact that BB industry was a party to a transaction with no fault.

2013Guhap10063 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

The Director of the National Tax Service

October 2, 2013

October 30, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax for the year 2010 against the Plaintiff on May 7, 2012 and the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an enterprise engaged in the business of collecting, screening, and selling scrap and industrial wastes used for the same refining, and the business of processing non-ferrous metal recycling materials.

B. In the second taxable period of 2010, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) of the supply value of OOO members from the corporation BB industry (hereinafter “BB industry”) during the second taxable period, and reported the value-added tax including the input tax amount.

C. On May 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of the KRW OO of the corporate tax for the year 2010 and KRW OOO of the value-added tax for two years 2010 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 6, 2012, but was dismissed on November 7 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of this case is unlawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff actually paid the purchase price after being supplied with the closed Dong from the BB industry, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

Even if the tax invoice of this case is prepared differently from the fact, the plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate of the BB industry and the copy of the deposit passbook prior to the transaction, set the purchase price at the market transaction price level, and paid the price to the account of the BB industry, etc., the plaintiff constitutes a party with good faith and negligence.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010) which denies the deduction of an input tax amount on a tax invoice received in the course of transaction refers to a case where the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the entity that actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, or the price, time, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Thus, even if a transaction of supplying the goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier constitutes a “tax invoice different from the one that is different from the issuer of the tax invoice.”

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments on this case, the BB industry is merely a so-called "data" that only serves as a part of the data such as tax invoices necessary for real transactions, and it is sufficiently recognized that the actual supplier of the goods is a third party other than BB industry under the tax invoice of this case. The tax invoice of this case constitutes "tax invoice different from that of the actual supplier of the goods," and the plaintiff's assertion of this part against this is without merit.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent because the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of BB industry listed as the supplier in the tax invoice of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

Rather, the following circumstances are revealed in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and the images of evidence Nos. 1 through 6, namely, ① the Plaintiff has been engaged in closed-end transactions for not less than 10 years. As such, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been well aware of the so-called data on closed-end transactions. ② In order to determine whether the transaction partner is data, it is reasonable to conduct an additional investigation on the business location, business facilities, etc. in a case where there is doubt as to whether the business period, transaction experience, etc. of the Plaintiff is available, but the Plaintiff purchased a closed-end transaction from the BB industry that had no past transaction relation and received telephone calls from its employees without confirming the transaction experience, location, business facilities, etc. It is considerably difficult to view that the Plaintiff had been negligent in the Plaintiff’s transaction without having been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that there was a lot of business experience, etc. in closed-end transactions with BB industry or the head of the competent tax office, but it is also difficult to view that the Plaintiff had been negligent in the Plaintiff’s business (see 200.).

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.