The early 2013Gu2911

It cannot be deemed that there was no negligence on the part of not knowing the fact that it was a false tax invoice.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a bona fide trading party, since the Plaintiff was negligent in not properly examining the fact that the actual counterparty of the transaction was aware of or suspected of being the actual counterparty of the transaction, or there was a need to investigate the existence of the actual counterparty of the transaction.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap3247 and revocation of revocation of imposition of corporate tax

AA Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 14, 2014

June 20, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On November 6, 2012, the Defendant revoked each disposition of the value-added tax ○○○○ and the corporate tax ○○○○○○ for the first term of 2011 against the Plaintiff on November 6, 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 23, 2010, the Plaintiff is a company established with the purpose of soliciting business related to telecommunications, such as the Internet and telephone, and is operated by the method of attracting subscribers by proxy and receiving fees after concluding an entrustment contract with an oil and telecommunications business operator.

B. On January 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff received 27 copies of tax invoices equivalent to the supply value of ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) fromCC (hereinafter “CC”), and the Defendant deducted the supply value of the instant tax invoices from the input tax amount when filing the return of value-added tax at the time of filing the return of value-added tax on January 201.

C. On June 14, 2012 to July 23, 2012, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant investigation”), and notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation that the instant tax invoice was confirmed to be due to the processing purchase on August 9, 2012.

D. After that, on November 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 89,398,040, and KRW 11,367,220, for the Plaintiff for the reason that the supplier of the tax invoice at issue was different from the fact (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an objection on February 1, 2013, but the Daegu Director of the Regional Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on September 16, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence 2, 4, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a business consignment agreement with the Plaintiff, which provides that the Plaintiff shall pay fees if it registers by attracting Internet, Internet, telephone, and Internet TV subscribers through the Plaintiff’s website. Following the consignment agreement, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice based on the transaction performance as agreed upon in the consignment agreement, and paid the fees corresponding thereto. The actual representative of theCC is the largest ○○, and the next ○○ is the only representative, and both the Plaintiff received a disposition of non-prosecution (suspect).

In accordance with the normal procedure with the maximum ○○, the actual representative of L&C, and the issue tax invoice was issued. The Plaintiff was unaware of the fact thatCC was the data, and was not aware.

Therefore, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 25, 2010,CC established a sales business of telecommunications equipment and peripheral devices for its business purpose. Under its corporate register, the representative director is the tea ○○ and intra-company directors. On December 31, 201 on the register of shareholders, the tea ○ owns all 10,000 shares issued byCC.

2) ○○세무서장의 CC에 대한 세무조사결과(조사대상기간: 2011. 1. 1.˜2011. 12. 31.) 및 관련자에 대한 조사내용은 다음과 같다.

4. Investigation related to transaction order (No. 5)

5. Details of inspection;

(a) Survey on current status of business places;

◌ 2010. 12. 15. 개업하여 2011. 12. 19. 직권폐업된 법인으로 차○○이 대표이사, 권○○이 감사이고, 개업 이후 세금납부 사실 없으며, 현재 국세 257백만 원 체납, 대표자 차○○은 법인주식 전부를 소유한 자로서 법인의 제2차 납세의무자로 지정됨

m. Major investigation details of the persons involved;

1. The full-time statement of ○○○○, a corporate representative director (from No. 6-1 to 3);

◌ 2010. 11.경 권DD과 사업을 하기 위하여 자신이 직접 법인 설립등기를 하였고 자신이 과일가게를 운영하고 있어 밖으로 나갈 수 없어 법인서류(법인인감, 법인등기부등본, 통장, 차○○의 운전면허증사본 등)를 권DD에게 건네주어 보관하도록 하였다고 진술함

◌ 차○○은 자신의 의사에 따라 직접 법인설립 등기는 하였으나 사업자등록신청은 자신이 하지 않았으며 타인에게 사업자등록신청을 하도록 위임한 적도 없으며 누가 신청했는지 모른다고 주장하다가 2012. 2. 6. 진술에서는 권부장이 한 것 같으며 권부장의 정확한 인적사항은 모른다고 진술함

◌ 자신은 법인 명의로 사업을 시작한 사실이 없으며 최○○을 알지 못하며 또한 법인계좌의 입ㆍ출금 내역, 법인 명의로 발행된 세금계산서 339매(공급가액: ○○○○백만 원)에 대해서도 전혀 알지 못하며 자신과는 무관하며 법인명의가 도용된 것이라고 진술함

◌ 차○○은 CC의 1인주주로서 최○○에게 CC의 법인명의를 사용하도록 허락한 사실이 없다고 진술함

2. Servitude;

◌ 2011. 12. 23. 부산교도소에서 접견

◌ 차○○에게서 법인서류를 건네 받아 자신의 승용차에 보관하였으며 보관하던 서류는 박○○(권실장)이 가져간 것 같으며 자신은 2010. 12. 5. 체포되어 현재까지 수감 중이라 사업자등록신청과 세금계산서 발행에 대해서는 관련이 없고 알지 못한다고 진술함

3. The last written statement of the end of ○○○○ (a evidence No. 7-1 through 3) by the person who actually committed the act.

◌ CC 명의로 발행된 세금계산서는 법인과는 무관하며 자신이 개인적으로 인터넷가입고객 모집명단을 수집하여 상위 사업자에게 넘겨주면서, 자신은 사업자등록이 되어 있지 않아 자신의 명의로 세금계산서를 발행할 수 없어 CC 명의로 발행한 것이며 동 매출건은 법인의 매출이 아니라 자신의 매출이며 자신이 세금을 부담하여야 한다고 진술함

◌ CC와 법적인 관계가 없음에도 법인계좌에서 현금을 임의로 출금한 이유는 법인계좌에 입금된 현금은 자신이 사업자등록 없이 인터넷가입 모집업을 한 대가를 거래처로부터 받은 것으로서 계좌에 입금된 현금은 법인 소유 자산이 아니고 자신의 돈이기에 자신이 임의로 출금하여 사용하였다고 진술함

◌ CC의 사업자등록증, 공인인증서 등을 법인 및 법인대표자인 차○○의 허락없이 임의로 사용하였다고 진술함

3) January 18, 2012 on the Plaintiff’s representative, prepared by a public official in charge of the ○○ Tax Office’s public official.

The main contents of the police interrogation protocol of March 4, 2013 are as follows.

4. A written answer (No. 8)

sentence: At the time of the transaction withCC, whether the contract was written or not

Response:As there are basic terms and conditions of the FF contract when theCC registers to attract the F website, its inner part;

I am written and registered in the part agreed to.

Note: Does a transaction upon being introduced by anyone at the time of the transaction withCC.

Preferreds: He has been introduced from an employee who has long been engaged in the same occupation and has started transactions.

m.: The name of the person who made the introduction, known to him;

Note: Maximum E.E.

sentence: Doz. with knowledge of the tea ○, a representative director ofCC

The answer: At the risk of mother.

Note: Doz. Doz. ○ Doz. Doz. Doz.

Answer: Examples. I shall not:

Note: Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

The answer: I will be written. Before the transaction, I will write the highest ○○ at the company located in Busan before the transaction. I will thereafter start the transaction by introducing the highest E.

Note: Doz. Doz. Doz. directly operateCC

The answer: I knew that the highest ○○ was the president. In the course of the transaction, I would have resolved by the highest ○○ in the event of any inevitable problem.

sentence: how ○○ does not have a transaction with your company, and how it is 600 million won or more, and it may cause a transaction which is not known to the representative.

The answer: It is not necessary to accept the representative, etc. of the other party because it takes the procedure of settlement among the cases in which the recruitment quantity has been received and opened at low-income companies. In common, in this system, it is common that the transaction with the operating officer is conducted with the recruitment document, and if the document is received and the opening is confirmed at the head office, it is naturally paid the money.

The phrase: I will express my opinion on the transaction with the ○○○ million won, without any confirmation of the other party, while making one representative at any time and making a transaction with the other party.

The answer: The Internet recruitment document received from the subordinate company is put in the head office and receives the price, but the head office does not confirm the representative of the subordinate company and give money to the company only if the company reported and settled the case. It does not mean that the recruitment document gives money when the opening is normal and the opening is completed normally, and it is not that the daily representative is confirmed and the money is given. The low-income company also has a person who is not aware of the face at the customer and has no permanent domicile at one time.

4. Examination of suspect suspect (No. 20)

The text: According to the accusation, the actual volume of purchase was determined by the trade order investigation conducted by the ○○ Tax Office, and it was confirmed that the relevant purchase quantity was supplied by the ○○○○○, notCC, and that the FF made the first transaction with the ○○ prior to the trade with the ○○ prior to the trade with the ○○○.

The answer: Most companies secure the purchasing place by requiring most companies to register their own stores through their own website as low-scarbs, and then confirm their representative copies of passbooks, identification cards, and business registration certificates, and begin transactions with the next supplementary documents. The method of securing the quantity and payment shall be conducted in such a way as to register their customers and settle their fees on a daily basis through their own website. Although it is important to secure the purchasing place and the customers, it is the most important thing in the daily settlement, but it is the most important reason for this reason. On the other hand, the profit rate per attracting case is 2:3%, but it is possible to accurately grasp the fee policy due to the type of goods, combined goods, etc., and to reduce the loss without a real number. Therefore, all business affairs are focused on the settlement of accounts, so it is difficult to confirm the purchase place and customer verification, and the supplier's name holder has been engaged in the business with the lowest 00 ○○○, and it is different from the actual transaction that the customer does not know to ○○ or 70.

door: Doing that the suspect met or visited the place of business, who is the representative director ofCC.

The answer: No one shall be the case.

4) The details of the computerized registration submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (No. 13-2 of the evidence No. 13-2), ○○

On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a computerized registration with an individual with an individual with an insurance consumer. However, on November 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a computerized closure, and on January 4, 2011, the largest ○○ re-registered the Plaintiff with an individual with an insurance consumer.

5) On February 2, 2010 to February 2, 2011,CC reported value-added tax to the head of ○○○ Tax Office, but on April 16, 2012, the head of ○○ Tax Office deemed that the value-added tax was corrected and notified on the ground that ○○ was engaged in disguised sales throughCC, on the ground that ○○ was the largest individual sales.

6) The maximum ○○ and the representative director ofCC on August 10, 2012, and the Plaintiff and the representative ○○ was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on July 10, 2013, respectively. The summary of the grounds for non-prosecution is as follows.

m. Maximum ○, ○ Non-prosecution

○○○: Recognizing that ○○ operatedCC and actually operated the Internet customer attraction project, the issue tax invoices, etc. are generated without supply of goods or services by ○○○ otherwise.

there is no evidence to find that there is a urgency;

○ ○○: The ○○ stated that it was not involved in the issuance of issues and tax invoices, etc. by the ○○ actually operated theCC.

/ The reason why the plaintiff was not prosecuted

The lack of evidence to deem that the ○○○ received the issue tax invoice with knowledge that the other party was the largest individual rather thanCC.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 5 through 10, 12 through 20, 22

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings, including branch numbers,

D. Determination

1) Whether the issue tax invoice is a false tax invoice

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer and shall be subject to tax, it refers to a case where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual supplier, the price, and the timing of the supplier, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Thus, even if the transaction of supplying the goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier constitutes a "tax invoice issued so-called disguised transaction different from the issuer," and according to the above findings, the actual supplier, not the Plaintiff, but the actual supplier of the supply price in the tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact.

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 negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice and that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009; 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

Therefore, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the issue tax invoice that the Plaintiff received to the largest ○○ by paying a fee according to the transaction performance was a false tax invoice and that there was no negligence due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know that the issue tax invoice was a false tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, the name of “A” No. 4 (Business Entrustment Contract) recognizes the fact that the largest ○○ was signed and sealed by the Plaintiff, and that ○○ was delegated by the representative director, the

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 7 cannot be used as evidence, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the above facts of recognition and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was negligent in not examining the Plaintiff’s actual counterparty of the transaction, even though it was aware that the Plaintiff was the largest ○○, which is notCC based on the issue tax invoice, or that there was a suspicion as to whether the other party to the transaction was the actual party to the transaction, and the need to investigate

① The Plaintiff entered into a transaction with the largest director, not the representative director ofCC, and was issued a tax invoice in the name ofCC when paying fees. However, the representative director ofCC, the representative director ofCC, without being aware of the issuance of the key tax invoice, did not know at all, nor did the maximum ○○, and did not allow the use of the name ofCC to the largest director. In addition, even in the business consignment agreement with the name ofCC, the Plaintiff signed and sealed by the largest ○○, not the representative ○.

② Although the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the actual trader, the actual trader and the name of the trading party on the issues tax invoice, and was unaware of the name of the CC representative director, the Plaintiff did not take all measures for confirmation, such as making the following ○○, impairing the telephone liaison, or visiting the office ofCC.

③ The Plaintiff, while engaging in a transaction with the largest ○○○○, shall focus on the normal completion of the recruitment document and the opening thereof, and if so verified, only paid the money to the largest ○○○, and did not take measures to confirm the intention or delegation relationship of the other party’s representative.

④ On May 31, 2010, ○○○ filed a computerized registration with his/her personal with his/her own mobile phone number as before entering the name of the business site asCC and entered it into a new mobile phone number with his/her own mobile phone number in the last place of business on November 5, 2010 (Evidence 10-7). In addition, on January 8, 201, 201, the Plaintiff transferred the fee traded withCC to ○○’s Busan Private Bank account (Evidence 10-7).

⑤ During the process of the tax investigation of the ○○ Tax Office, the ○○○ stated that “the person’s credit was issued under the name ofCC because it was impossible to issue a tax invoice under one’s own name because it was not registered as a business operator, and that the sales credit was not a corporation’s sales but a corporation’s own sales and must bear taxes,” and that “the cash deposited in the CC’s corporate account was not a corporation’s ownership but was voluntarily released and used for its own money.” In addition, it also stated that “CC’s business registration certificate, authorized certificate, etc. was used without permission of the corporation and its representative.”

【○○○” merely received a disposition of non-prosecution on the ground that it was not an issue tax invoice issued without a real transaction, on the ground that ○○ was not a party involved in the issuance of the issue tax invoice. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s receipt of the issue tax invoice different from the fact does not correspond to the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence. Rather, ○○ used the name ofCC while providing services, etc. to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, CC’s representative was entirely unaware of the issuance of the issue tax invoice. Accordingly, the issue tax invoice is different from the fact.

It can be seen that the plaintiff's bad faith or negligence with respect to the fact that it is a gold statement.

7) The Plaintiff and ○○○○, a representative, was issued a disposition of non-prosecution on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to deem that the other party was aware of the fact that the other party was the largest ○○ individual, notCC, but was issued a tax invoice. However, this does not necessarily mean that the nominal owner was unaware of the fact that the issue tax invoice was issued, and the fact that there is no negligence on the part of the nominal owner in the issuance of the tax invoice does not necessarily mean that the same value of evidence as the final and conclusive criminal judgment on the prosecutor’s non-prosecution decision cannot be granted. The administrative judgment does not necessarily be bound by the prosecutor’s non-prosecution decision, but does not necessarily require the prosecutor’s free evaluation based on evidence, and the court may recognize the facts opposed thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da2184, Dec. 26, 1995;

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.