It does not constitute a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff does not recognize good faith and negligence with respect to a false tax invoice.

In light of the circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser, such as the closure of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice, is a third party, and the purchaser is a disguised trader who issued only the tax invoice to the Plaintiff under his/her own name.

Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu67368 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

○ Metal Co., Ltd.

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Guhap2595 Decided October 30, 2015

May 10, 2016

June 14, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On December 4, 2013, the defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 87,177,630 in 201 and KRW 1,415,726,640 in 201.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

【First Instance】

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that was established on September 15, 2009 and runs a retail business of scrap metal and non-ferrous metal wholesale business, was a corporation that runs a sales business of scrap metal and non-metallic metals, and the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return with the Defendant, after receiving a purchase tax invoice of KRW 00 billion in the aggregate of the supply values as follows, from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201, from a Amerth, Bmerth, CC metal, dralping, esping, esping, and esping Korea (hereinafter referred to as “ff Korea,” and each of the above purchasing places together referred to as “each of the above purchasing places,” and deducting this from the output tax amount.

B. On December 1, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the investigation on the data related to each of the above purchasers, conducted an investigation on the Plaintiff, and thereafter deducted each of the above input taxes on the grounds that each of the above tax invoices is false, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the value-added tax of KRW 00,000 (including additional tax) for the first year of 201, and KRW 2,000,000 (including additional tax) for the second year of 2011.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 4, 2014, but was dismissed on June 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the waste Dong, etc. equivalent to the value of supply specified in each of the instant tax invoices from each purchaser of the instant case, and thus, each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice.

Even if each of the purchase places of this case constitutes the so-called data, the Plaintiff did not know such fact at the time of the transaction, and visited and confirmed the office at the time of commencement of transaction, and paid the price to each business partner’s account in the name of each business partner. In light of the fact that each transaction was made with a measurement confirmation document stating the measurement date, vehicle number, name, weight, and seal volume, and the driver’s signature and telephone number are written at each transaction, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether each of the instant tax invoices is false or not

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that "in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount." In such a case, the meaning of different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is a separate person to whom such entry is in fact belongs, the person to whom such entry is in fact belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the relevant tax law shall apply. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entry of a tax invoice does not coincide with the original entry of a transaction contract made between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entry of the transaction contract made between the parties to the transaction, the person to whom the goods are actually supplied or the person to whom the goods are supplied and the person to whom the goods are supplied, constitutes a tax invoice that is different from the actual taxpayer.

B) Determination by seller of this case

(1) A tax invoice received from Amera.

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of the closure of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is a third party, not a Amera, and Amera is a disguised trader that issued only tax invoices to the Plaintiff in its own name, in light of the following circumstances, based on the respective statements in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 4-1, 4-1, 5 of the evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 2-1, 5-1, 2000

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from Aamer constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① On February 25, 2011, Amera closed its business on September 26, 201, 201, ghhhh-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h ii-204-1, the representative, as a non-legal wholesale and retail company, jj, and one year after the opening of its business.

② 중부지방국세청의 조사 결과 jjj는 폐동 매입처에 대한 구체적 정보 등에 관하여 답변을 하지 못하면서 매입관련 증빙자료도 전혀 제출하지 못하였고, 2011년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간 동안 aa메탈의 매출액은 약 115억 원에 달하였으나 매입액은 000만 원에 불과하였고, ■■세무서장의 조사 결과 2011년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간 동안 매출액은 약 000억 원에 달하였으나 매입액은 00만 원에 불과하여 매입액에 비하여 매출액이 월등히 크다.

3. Amer's Office of Sale has transferred money in the name of the jj account, and the jj has withdrawn money in cash immediately, which is very exceptional that it is difficult for a normal business operator to regard it in the form of a fund management normally conducted.

④ From October 15, 2009, the place of business of km was used as a place of business from October 15, 2009, and the person on the personal data side did not actually engage in solid commercial transactions at the time of sub-lease from the place of business, and the person on the personal data side stated that the business registration certificate is required to know the place where the lease contract is possible. In addition, the km representative stated that after the sub-lease contract, there was no jj at the place of business, there was no fact that the place of business did not gather or cause the waste, nor set up the signboard and office facilities at the place of business.

5 j also has a place of business in order to appear as if amera actually exists.

Ameried the signboard and sent it to the related business entity with a photograph affixed.

6.j is only engaged in the work of software service business or music private teaching institutes, etc. before commencing the operation of Aamer, and it has no record of carrying out the work related to waste operation.

7.j was accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as the representative of Amers, but it was suspended until the date of discovery due to the unknown whereabouts.

(2) A tax invoice received from Bmers

In light of the following circumstances, the above facts and evidence Nos. 12, 14, and 2-3, 4-5 of the evidence Nos. 3, 2-3, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 2, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of the closing operation, etc. under the Plaintiff’s above tax invoice is not a bbbbbbbbbb, and bbbbbb is a disguised trader that issued only tax invoice to the Plaintiff under his/her own name. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from Bbbbbbbb constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff’s entry constitutes a false tax invoice, and

① bb메탈은 2011. 5. 16. gg시 서구 당하동 신안실크밸리아파트에 사업장을 두고 개업한 후 ○○시 ◊◊면 ◉◉리 41로 사업장을 이전한 고철 및 비철 도소매업체로서 대표자는 mmm이고, bb메탈의 사업장에는 계근대 등 영업시설이 설치되어 있다.

② As a result of the Defendant’s investigation, Bmers’ purchasers during the second imposition period of value-added tax in 201 are the companies that became final and conclusive as so-called “data,” which issued only the processed tax invoice without actually closing the entire transaction.

③ Abmers immediately after receiving a high-amount sales payment from the Plaintiff and other sales offices, shall be paid in full in cash, or abmers shall be remitted to the purchaser of Bbmers, and the purchaser shall withdraw the full amount in cash. This is very exceptional that is difficult to view it in the form of fund management ordinarily conducted by a normal business entity.

④ Although the mm has an insurance agency’s work experience, there is no record of working in the same business type or business type. Moreover, although the mm-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-

⑤ mm was prosecuted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) that the list of total tax invoices and the list of total tax invoices was submitted without being supplied with goods or services, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 0 billion on May 20, 2014 (Seoul Western District Court 2014Nohap27), but appealed, and filed a false statement on October 10, 2014, and filed a final appeal on the part that the list of total tax invoices and the list of total tax invoices was submitted on April 23, 2015 (Seoul High Court 2014No1567). However, on the grounds that the aforementioned portion of innocence was not related to the criminal facts that the Plaintiff did not receive processed tax invoices without real transactions, the Defendant was not found guilty on the ground that it was not related to the fact that the Plaintiff’s sales of the tax invoices and the list of the instant tax invoices were not related to the fact that the Plaintiff’s sales of the tax invoices were not directly related to the Plaintiff.

(3) A tax invoice received from c metal;

In light of the following circumstances, each of the above facts and evidence Nos. 4, 4-6, 5-5 of the evidence Nos. 2-4, 6, and 5-2, the actual purchaser of the closed Dong, etc. under the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is a third party, not c metal, and c metal is merely its name.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from c metal constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① cc금속은 2010. 10. 15. ◐◐ ◑◑구 ◒◒동 101-54에 사업장을 두고 개업한 고철 도매업체로서 대표자는 ooo이고, 2011. 12. 31. 세금체납 및 사업장이 부존재를 이유로 직권 폐업되었다.

② As a result of the investigation in relation to the transaction order with respect to the CM, the sales amount of the CM during the second half of 201 was approximately KRW 2.2 billion, and the purchase amount was KRW 2.22 billion, and the sales amount was monthly higher than the purchase amount by reporting about KRW 2.2 billion.2 billion.

c. The place of business of c. metal is a place where companies involved in material and material data, such as p. metal and r resources, have been used as their place of business.

④ Although Ho engaged in cargo business from 2002 to 2004 and engaged in cargo sales business under the trade name of Sss and Tt industry from 2005, the details of transactions were less than KRW 200 million. However, during the period of the imposition of the value-added tax in 201, sales have rapidly increased during the period of the second imposition of the value-added tax in 201, and the closed c metal transactions are goods with a high unit price and high barriers to entry.

⑤ Ao withdraws cash on the day immediately after receiving the sales price from the seller, or transfers it to his other accounts, and then withdraws it on the day, which is very exceptional that it is difficult for a normal business operator to view it in the form of fund management ordinarily conducted.

⑥ 한편 ooo은 실물 거래 없이 가공 세금계산서를 원고 등 13개의 매출처에 교부하였다는 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등) 혐의로 고발되었다가 2015. 2. 27 증거불충분 혐의없음 처분을 받았다(▲▲지방검찰청 2014년 형제99878호). 그러나 ㉠ 위 불기소처분은 cc금속이 실물 거래 없이 가공 세금계산서를 교부하였다는 피의사실에 관한 것인 반면, 피고는 cc금속이 교부한 세금계산서의 실제 공급자가 cc금속이 아니라는 이유로 이 사건 처분을 한 것이므로, 불기소처분사유와 이 사건 처분사유는 직접적 관련이 없는 점, ㉡ 검찰의 무혐의결정에 대해 확정된 형사판결과 동일한 증거가치를 부여할 수는 없고, 행정재판은 반드시 검사의 불기소사실에 구속받는 것은 아니고 법원은 증거에 의한 자유심증으로써 그와 반대되는 사실을 인정할 수 있는 점, ㉢ 그 밖에 cc금속의 운영형태, 비정상적인 자금 흐름 등을 보태어 보면, cc금속 대표자인 ooo이 위와 같은 이유로 불기소처분을 받았다는 사정만으로 원고가 cc금속으로부터 교부받은 세금계산서가 '공급자의 기재가 사실과 다른 세금계산서'라고 인정하는 데 방해가 되지 않는다.

(4) A tax invoice received from dd's d'd'

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of the closing Dong, etc. under the above tax invoice by the Plaintiff is a third party, rather than dddrid, and dd d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

① Drhying, on May 1, 201, was closed ex officio on April 12, 2012, 201, at FGGri 484-1, the representative of the scrap metal, as a non-ferrous wholesale and retail company with its place of business in FGri 484-1.

② As a result of the investigation into the ▽▽▽ tax, D/L d/L d/L d/L d/L had sales amounted to approximately KRW 0 billion during the imposition period of value-added tax in 201, but the purchase amount was never at all, and value-added tax was not paid.

(3) Nou has been engaged in a business related to entertainment tavern across the country, nor appears to have been engaged in a business related to entertainment tavern, and there is no property owned by him/her so that he/she is incapable of operating a business related to entertainment tavern independently. There was no trace of being able to conduct a business related to entertainment tavern or a vehicle entry into the business site.

④ Pu immediately deposited the sales price into its account and deposited it in cash. This is very exceptional that it is difficult to see it in the form of a normal business operator’s ordinary fund management.

(5) Pu filed a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, such as the issuance of a tax invoice without supplying goods or services, but the prosecution has been suspended until the location is unknown.

(5) A tax invoice received from eethyl

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of the closeddong, etc. under the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is a third party, not esethyl, and esethyl constitutes a disguised trader who issued only the tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from esethyl constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff’s entry constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① On October 10, 2009, the representative of the business registration certificate is WW v or the actual operator of the scrap metal and non-refrigerants, which had a place of business in AAB BB, 263-11, and the representative of the business registration certificate is MV or the actual operator, and is borrowing the name of vV. ephth from March 201 to HH II JJ-2-2 of the Eup, and from February 2012, HHH LL 505-3, respectively.

② During the imposition period of the value-added tax in 201 and 2012, eethyl reported the sales amount of approximately KRW 19.7 billion to KRW, and the purchase amount of KRW 17.5 billion to KRW 17.5 billion that was purchased by an individual without receiving the purchase tax invoice. However, the report on the purchase amount was made by stealing another’s resident registration number for the purpose of receiving the input tax deduction. Meanwhile, eethyl failed to pay taxes of KRW 1 billion.0 billion.

③ Prior to the opening of eice business, v only has been engaged in entertainment business-related business, and there is no history of engaging in scrap metal or non-ferrous retail business, and the actual operator WW of esethyl was operating espher and espher and espher and espher and esphering companies by opening the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of espher as espher and esphering companies on May 27, 201.

④ If the sales amount is deposited from the sales office, the sales amount was deposited in cash on the same day, and thereafter, the money was transferred from the account of the company at the same time to the account of the company at the same time to the account of the company at the same time, and the cash was withdrawn from the vv account after the transfer of the money from the account at the same time to the vv.V account. In addition, when the sales amount was deposited, the cash was transferred to the sales office after the cash was deposited on the same day. This is very exceptional that it is difficult to view it

WW was accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by issuing a tax invoice without supplying goods or services to the Plaintiff.

(6) A tax invoice received from aff Korea

In light of the following circumstances, the above facts and the evidence Nos. 10-14, 15, 16, 17-17, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-7, 4-5 of the evidence Nos. 2-7, 5, and 5-5 of the evidence Nos. 10-14 of the above facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of the closure of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice is not aff Korea, but a third party, and theff Korea is a disguised trader who issued only the tax invoice to the Plaintiff under its own name. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff’s entry constitutes a false

① On May 1, 201, 201, theff Korea opened a place of business in the area of 1431, YYYYYYYY 1431, and moved its place of business into YYYYYY 442-3, 16 November 16, 201.

② As a result of the Defendant’s investigation, container offices and scrap iron collection centers and places of business offf Korea.

One driver, one manager, and two workers for day duty have been equipped with facilities such as a valley, truck, parking lot, etc.

(3)YY has no history of running a business entity, other than a Chinese restaurant temporarily operated, and the human body;

While engaging in a fish-type business, YY stated that he/she had an interest in a non-ferrous-type business and was operating affing Korea. However, YY did not have an economic ability to operate a high-income scrap metal and non-ferrous-type retail business that requires large cash mobilization.

④ Theff Korea receives sales payment from the Plaintiff who is a seller, immediately, theff Korea’s payment.

It is very exceptional that it is difficult for a normal business operator to regard it as a form of fund management ordinarily performed by a normal business operator to pay, even if the unit price is high and the unit price is closed, etc. is likely to be realized in cash.

⑤ DD drums or Bmers have been engaged in direct transactions with the Plaintiff, but the margin has decreased due to transactions with theff Korea instead of transactions with the Plaintiff. It is difficult to find reasonable grounds for selecting a transaction with theff Korea.

6) On July 8, 2013, an accusation was filed against a charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Tax Invoice, etc.) against which aff Korea and its representative received or delivered processed tax invoices without any actual transaction (gg City District Prosecutors' Office Deputy District Prosecutors' Office, 2013 Form No. 8424). However, the above disposition of non-prosecution is related to the suspected fact that aff Korea issued a processed tax invoice without any actual transaction. However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the grounds that the actual supplier of the tax invoice issued by theff Korea is not aff Korea. Thus, the grounds for disposition of non-prosecution and the grounds for disposition of this case cannot be granted the same value as the criminal judgment finalized by the prosecution of the Republic of Korea, and the administrative judgment is not always bound by the prosecutor's non-prosecution, but can be recognized by the court as opposing the facts by free accusation by evidence, and the Plaintiff's non-prosecution disposition was not a representative of Korea, based on the following circumstances.

2) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff is the trader of good faith and negligence

A) Relevant legal principles

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 of misrepresentation of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

B) Determination

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, and the following circumstances revealed in addition to Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that there were sufficient circumstances to suspect the other party as a disguised business operator in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a qualified business operator. Thus, it is insufficient to find that the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff was not negligent due to the failure of the other party to know that the name of the supplier of the tax invoice for each purchase of this case is different from the actual supplier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

(1) A closed-dong is a high-priced waste resources, which has been collected once again through a small or 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 also cash transactions are general, such as immediately account transfer at the time of transactions with the purchaser in order to meet the quantity of the seller due to a lack of supply compared to demand. In addition, the closed-dong, etc. is a high-priced type of business for a long time, and is unable to trade without having business networks and guidance, unlike other scrap metals.

② The Plaintiff’s representative Kim coefficient worked for “Seoul Metal”, which was operated by the Plaintiff. From April 15, 1997, the Plaintiff opened a private wholesale business with the trade name of “Seoul Franps collection and refining company,” and opened a private wholesale business on December 31, 199, and closed a private wholesale business on July 27, 200, and closed the business on March 31, 2001. The Plaintiff seems to have operated a private wholesale business again with the trade name of “Seoul Metal” on January 2, 2003, and established the Plaintiff as a juristic person and operated a private wholesale business until now, in light of such factors as Kim Fran’s model and the supply structure and danger of non-retail, etc., the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the general supply structure and danger of the pertinent business.

③ Within one year prior to the commencement of the transaction with the Plaintiff, each of the instant purchasing offices was conducted by a new production company (excluding esethyl) and a relatively short-term transaction was conducted by a relatively short-term transaction. In particular, the Plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate, etc. from Amera, and the opening date indicated on the business registration certificate was before February 25, 201, which was 3 months prior to the first transaction date. In addition, the Plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate, ooo’s copy, and oo’s copy from the c metal side, and the copy of the oo’s passbook was indicated as “t metal.” If this situation is the Plaintiff, it was necessary to investigate whether aamer or c metal is actually a real supplier.

④ The Plaintiff did not conduct an on-site investigation, such as having visited and confirmed the site of each of the instant purchasing places prior to the transaction, or having received and kept the current photographs, etc. (the Plaintiff presented as evidence a photograph by asserting that he directly visited and confirmed the site of each of the instant purchasing places. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had already traded with the said purchasing places prior to the visit to the workplace of bmerth, esethyl, and fff Korea, and that the Plaintiff had already been equipped with facilities for performing the closed-dong wholesale business at each of the purchasing places. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had fully taken the confirmation measures

⑤ In addition, 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 the competent district tax office by requiring the business entity to apply for registration to the head of the competent district tax office 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 the copy of the passbook also designated the account to be deposited. Thus, in light of the reality of the transaction with the frequent closure agreement, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone does not constitute a bona fide and without fault transaction party.

⑥ Since j (amer), m (bmer), u (d) and YY (d) Korea had never been engaged in a business related to closed-dong before, and vV (eethyl) have leased only the name of the actual actors. If the Plaintiff with expertise in closed-dong distribution conducted an interview with the representative, the Plaintiff with expertise in closed-dong distribution would have been able to immediately dissipate that the representative is outside of experience with respect to closed-dong distribution, and there seems to have been sufficient circumstances to suspect that the other party would be a disguised business operator if such a person had supplied closed-dong even after a business registration was made for more than one month.

7. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff left the transaction evidence, such as photographing the cargo loading vehicle with its own place of business. The photograph shows matters to verify the actual transaction, such as the date of purchase, the time of storage, the transport vehicle, etc., but it is insufficient to view the fact that the actual transaction was made, from the fact that there was a real transaction, that each of the purchase places of this case, other than a third party, is the supplier.

(8) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and Kim coefficient received a false tax invoice stating as if they were supplied with goods from each of the instant purchasing agencies, and filed a complaint on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice) against the charge that submitted a false list of total tax invoices by individual purchaser to ggggg-si tax office, etc. on February 3, 2014 (gg-si District Prosecutors' Office Decision No. 2722, 2014). However, the same value of evidence as the final and conclusive criminal judgment against the prosecutor's office's non-prosecution decision cannot be granted, and the administrative trial is not bound by the non-prosecution disposition, and the court can find the fact that the Plaintiff received a processed tax invoice without actual transaction, and the main reason for the non-prosecution disposition above is that whether the real transaction was conducted by the Plaintiff and the actual supplier was not the purchaser of each of the instant goods. In light of the fact that there is no direct connection with the negligence in good faith, it is insufficient to view of the Plaintiff and negligence alone.

3. Conclusion

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