Cho High-2017-China-0518 (2017.06)

It constitutes a tax invoice issued and received without a transaction of actual goods on the data.

It constitutes a false tax invoice, contrary to the plaintiff's assertion that it is a transaction of goods, and thus, the disposition of imposition is legitimate.

Article 32 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Guhap12082 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

MeA Co., Ltd.

Cz superintendent of the tax office

June 26, 2018

July 17, 2018

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 271,902,210 for the first year of 2012 against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2016, KRW 530,451,580 for the second year of 2012, and KRW 428,937,120 for the first year of 2013, and value-added tax of KRW 434,816,270 for the second year of 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff completed its business registration as a wholesale and retail business of non-metallic metals, from around 2012 to around 2014, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices with the purport that the Defendant supplied value-added tax equivalent to KRW 42,438,75,322 from BB (hereinafter “Purchase”) during the 1st to 2nd taxable period of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant taxable period”) from the Defendant during the 2nd taxable period of the 2nd taxable period of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant taxable period”). The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoices with the purport that the Plaintiff supplied 42,438,775,322 won (hereinafter “the instant purchase tax invoices”). The Plaintiff filed a total of 22 enterprises, such as CD companies (hereinafter “instant sales”).

B. On October 17, 2016, the Defendant deemed that all of the purchase tax invoices and sales tax invoices in this case were tax invoices different from the fact that they were not actually traded, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 271,902,210, value-added tax for the first year of 2012 pursuant to Articles 57(1) and 60(3) of the Value-Added Tax Act, value-added tax 530,451,580, value-added tax for the second year of 2012, value-added tax for the first year of 2013, value-added tax 428,937,120, value-added tax for the second year of 2013, value-added tax 434,816,270 for the second year of 2013, respectively

- each entry (including each number) in Gap's No. 1, 2, and Eul's No. 1;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After paying the purchase price of this case to the purchaser of this case, if the purchaser of this case purchased the closed Dong, etc., the Plaintiff was engaged in sales by having the purchaser obtain only a certain margin in the middle and directly supply the closed Dong, etc. from the purchaser of this case to the seller of this case. On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspicion as to the charge of issuing a false tax invoice during the taxable period, etc., and on February 2, 2018, under which the purchase tax invoice and sales tax invoice of this case received from the Plaintiff from the Jungbu District Tax Office was recognized as legitimate, the purchase tax invoice and sales tax invoice of this case are not different from the fact, and thus, the disposition of this case on the premise thereof is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to the cases where the contents of the requisite entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the entity that actually supplied or supplied the goods or services, and the price and time of the transaction, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services. The issue submitted by the taxpayer for value-added tax without any actual transaction, which is verified to a considerable extent by the tax office that the tax invoice was prepared without any actual transaction, or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact, is proved to a substantial extent by the tax office, and there is a dispute over whether the tax invoice is a real purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice. In a case where it is proved to a considerable extent that the transaction with the supplier as claimed by the taxpayer is false, it is necessary for the taxpayer to present the documents, such as evidence, as to the actual transaction with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Aug. 20, 209).

2) Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the purchase tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including paper numbers) as seen earlier. Based on such false purchase, the sales tax invoice of this case issued by the plaintiff to the seller of this case constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact, and thus, the disposition of this case based on such false purchase constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact is legitimate.

A) The purchaser of the instant case is the only company that the Plaintiff engaged in purchase transaction during the instant taxable period, and the Plaintiff was issued sales tax invoices with the purport that the Plaintiff received 46,656,419,348 won throughout the instant taxable period from the purchaser during the instant taxable period, and that the Plaintiff supplied 47,075,654,637 won via 591. The purchase tax invoices were issued to the purchaser that the Plaintiff supplied 47,075,654,637 won to the Plaintiff.

B) The purchaser of the instant case entered “MeA” in the seller column and entered the sales invoice in the way that the company name of the company that actually supplies the future end-of-life, etc. was added, and then issued sales tax invoices of the same content to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff issued sales tax invoices of the same content to the designated seller as the Plaintiff’s sales invoice with the same content as the above total part of the contract. The unit price of the instant case was 90 won/km high, but the sales tax invoice was issued with the content that the unit price of the goods is 90 won/km high. However, there was no facility such as the open straw, etc. that can load the waste during the instant taxable period, as well as

C) The instant purchaser was imposed value-added tax on December 1, 2012 by the Defendant on the grounds that the tax invoice issued and received during the instant taxable period was a tax invoice for which no real transaction was conducted, on December 1, 2014, and on December 1, 2012, 2012, 1, 2013, and 2, 2013. In the administrative litigation disputing the said disposition, the purchase tax invoice for seven enterprises, such as FFmers and GGmers, cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice (Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu40695 decided Dec. 12, 2017). The said judgment determined that the sales tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff during the instant taxable period constituted a false tax invoice.

D) The Plaintiff asserted that it was an intermediate wholesale transaction that takes a certain margin. However, after completing business registration on April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased a closed Dong, etc. only from the instant purchasing entity during the instant taxable period, and the Plaintiff obtained the form of transaction in which the instant purchasing entity issues a tax invoice to the designated selling entity by raising the unit price by designating the secondary selling entity, the items of sales, and the volume of sales. As the instant purchasing entity discontinues its business, the sales and purchase was reduced rapidly, thereby making a business closure report on June 8, 2016, and it is difficult to view it as a normal intermediate wholesale transaction form that directly determines and trades the purchasing entity and the selling entity.

E) On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office’s disposition that was suspected of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice). However, the disposition that was suspected of having been taken was due to lack of evidence, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the purchase tax invoice and sales tax invoice in this case do not constitute a tax invoice that was entered differently from the fact, and as seen earlier, the judgment recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff prepared a false tax invoice after

F) Meanwhile, around 2017, on the ground that the tax invoice received from the Plaintiff during the instant taxable period was a false tax invoice from the yx tax office, it was subject to the imposition of value-added tax on January 1, 2012, 202, 1, and 2013 on the ground that the tax invoice received from the Plaintiff during the instant taxable period was a false tax invoice. However, on February 8, 2018, the Central Tax Office received a decision to revoke the said imposition by the Central Tax Office on the grounds that the said tax invoice was a false tax invoice. However, the said decision to revoke the said disposition was to recognize that the tax invoice received from the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice, but it was not negligent in the Plaintiff’s failure to know that it was a disguised business operator, and thus, it was entitled to the

3. Conclusion

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