Cho Jae-chul2010 Before 3205 ( December 31, 2010)

A false tax invoice shall be deemed to have been registered as a closed resource sales business at a place used as a simple store, etc.

A tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff on the grounds that the place of business registration of a purchaser who asserts that the Plaintiff purchased waste resources is a place used as a simple store and did not have any basic facilities for carrying on the business, such as an open site for keeping waste resources separately, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of waste resources, etc., the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff is a tax invoice different from the fact entered by

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XXSC Co., Ltd.

Head of Chungcheong Tax Office

September 1, 2011

September 22, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 23,514,020 against the Plaintiff on July 12, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation whose purpose is the export and import, sale, etc. of recycled products. In 2008, the Plaintiff purchased waste resources, such as “plast scrap,” etc. from the LAA to the Defendant seven times in the first taxable period of value added tax, and received seven copies of the tax invoice of KRW 137,100,000 in total (from next to the tax invoice of this case), and deducted the tax amount related to the purchase amount under the tax invoice of this case, and reported and paid the value-added tax and corporate tax by adding the purchase amount to the deductible expenses.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation into the leastA, the director of the tax office for the City interest and the director of the tax office determined that the pertinent tax invoice was a processed tax invoice issued without real transactions and notified the Defendant of the Plaintiff’s tax office.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and determined that the instant tax invoice was a processed tax invoice issued without real transactions. On July 12, 2010, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 23,514,020 for the first period of 208, and corporate tax of KRW 22,376,230 for the business year 2008, by deducting the input tax amount on the instant tax invoice from deductible expenses (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2008, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On December 31, 2010, the Tax Tribunal revoked the disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2008 and dismissed the petition for adjudication on the instant disposition on the grounds that, since the Plaintiff exported waste resources in the course of operating the camping site to export waste resources, it may be deemed that the Plaintiff actually purchased waste resources equivalent to the purchase amount under the instant tax invoice, but it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff purchased waste resources from the largestA.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3 (including the number of branches), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As the Plaintiff actually purchased waste resources equivalent to the purchase amount under the instant tax invoice from the LA, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice.

(2) Even if the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have been negligent due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know that it was the name of the leastA, and the Plaintiff did not know that it was negligent (the Plaintiff did not make a clear assertion as to this part, but the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the purchaser was not obliged to verify and purchase the source of the goods at the time of the purchase of the goods, and the purchaser fulfilled its duty of care as the purchaser).”

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

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

(A) The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries of the tax invoice refer to the cases where the contents of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier or the supplier of the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

(B) In light of the alleged facts that the Plaintiff actually purchased waste resources equivalent to the purchase amount under the instant tax invoice during the first taxable period of 2008, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s testimony by the witness Gap and the witness tearA is not sufficient to recognize it by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(C) Rather, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence as well as evidence Nos. 4 and evidence No. 77, and the witness testimony, i.e., registration of the business at the king-dong 000-0, which was used as a simple place of business, but it appears that the place was used as a simple place of business, and that there was no basic facility for operating the business to store waste resources separately from the place of sale. ② The maximum amount of 77,00 won was purchased from the GangnamB in 2008 and the 75,949,000 won was deducted from the input tax invoice, but it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff purchased the 3rd-do tax invoice under the name of the customer to have purchased the 75,949,00 won or more from the 77,000 won amount of waste resources from the 37,000 won, and it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff purchased the 3rd-end tax invoice to have received the 75,00,00.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide or 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 are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of, and was not negligent in, the fact that the supplier was not aware of, the fact that the supplier was not negligent in not aware of the fact that the name was entered in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was unaware of, or was not negligent in, the fact that the name was entered in the instant tax invoice, and that the Plaintiff did not know of, the fact that the name was entered in the

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which judged that the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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