The trial examiner 2012 middle 2910 [Judgment]

The sales tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff is not a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff is not a bona fide party.

The sales tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the processing tax invoice, and the purchase tax invoice received by the Plaintiff is not negligent by the Plaintiff as a bona fide party to the transaction, and thus, the disposition

Article 27 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap6177 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA Trade Co., Ltd

Head of Si Tax Office

2014.03.19

2014.24

1. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 9,784,773, value-added tax for the first year of 2010 against the Plaintiff, KRW 17,498,077, and KRW 6,464,250 for the second year of 2010.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was engaged in the wholesale and retail business of non-metallic metals from ○○-dong 106-5, Sinung-si, 2007.

B. 1) In 2010, the Plaintiff issued sales tax invoices worth KRW 1,122,412,250 (hereinafter “instant sales tax invoices”) on Company BB (hereinafter “BB”) during the first and second VAT taxable periods as listed below.

2) The Plaintiff issued purchase tax invoices amounting to KRW 64,642,500 (hereinafter “the purchase tax invoices in this case”) from CCTV’s 2010 in the first and second taxable periods of the value-added tax, and received purchase tax invoices amounting to KRW 15,175,476,80 in total from DD, and filed a return on the value-added tax with the Defendant including the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant issued a tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to BB on the ground that the Plaintiff issued the processed sales tax invoice, and the Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount on the ground that the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff was written differently from the fact, and that the Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax amount of KRW 1,250,627,620, and KRW 1,391,267,350 (including the additional tax) for the second year of value-added tax for the year 2010.

D. On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on June 14, 2012. On May 30, 2013, the Tax Tribunal reviewed whether the purchase tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from DD was received through the real transaction, and made a decision that the tax base and tax amount should be corrected according to the results of the reexamination, and that the remainder of the request for a trial is dismissed.

E. The Defendant issued a purchase tax invoice by DD, on the ground that the actual transaction was confirmed, issued by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a disposition of reduction or exemption of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 9,784,773 (additional tax amounting to KRW 4,950,170, and KRW 4,834,60 in relation to the tax invoice issued by BB), KRW 17,498,07 in addition to the value-added tax for the second year of 2010 (additional tax related to the tax invoice issued by BB), KRW 6,464,250 in the year 2010 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff issued the sales tax invoice of this case to BB who actually engaged in the non-ferrous business at the business establishment of Tae-si around 2010. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition that the person receiving the sales tax invoice of this case determined as a false tax invoice is unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff obtained a business registration certificate from the CCF Kim F, and confirmed the place of business, and transacted. The Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide trading party by taking all measures to verify whether KimF actually supplies waste, etc., and thus, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction of the purchase tax invoice issued by KimF solely on the ground that KimF accusation was filed in material.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the statement No. 3 B, the Plaintiff issued BB tax invoices to BB without supplying the goods to BB, the Seoul Director of the Regional Tax Office started an investigation on the ground that the sales revenue of BB from KRW 1,970,000 to KRW 3,450,000,000 for KRW 1,970,000. As a result of the investigation, KimG’s representative of BB did not have any capacity to transfer non-ferrous metal; the lessor 1505, which was the location of BB business, was the former representative of BB BB, and the Plaintiff did not have any capacity to transfer the goods to 30,000,000 from KRW 1,97,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

2) The purchase tax invoice of the instant case issued from CCTV

A) Whether the purchase tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact is that the necessary entries of the tax invoice refer to the case where the contents of the requisite entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person who actually supplied or is supplied with the goods or services, the price and the time of the transaction, regardless of the formal entries such as the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 199

The burden of proving that the tax authority constitutes the case is the principle that the tax authority bears the burden (Supreme Court Decision 2008.12.

11. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737.

The following circumstances are revealed by considering the statement No. 4 of the evidence No. 4, i.e., (1) the director of the Central District Tax Office determined that the transfer of money from the Plaintiff et al. constitutes "data No. 1 after conducting a tax investigation with respect to KimF," (2) KimF started the business with the trade name "CC No. 209, Jun. 24, 2009, when ten months have passed since the release from the prison was done in prison, but the source of the opening business was not disclosed at all, and closed the business without paying value-added tax of 5.5 billion won until September 10, 2010.

B) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

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 nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). However, in the case of waste resources, such as the instant goods, the supplier cannot be deemed to have a duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business operator due to the nature of the distribution structure and transaction, and thus, there is sufficient circumstance to suspect that the other party is 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, the other party is negligent in not knowing that the other party is a disguised business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 197).

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 10 through 15, No. 10 to 4, and evidence No. 4, the following facts are acknowledged: (i)CC Qu was equipped with portable container offices and high iron collection centers and parking lots located at 400 square meters in the 400-scale night store, 569, located on the business registration certificate; (ii) the Plaintiff was provided with a business registration certificate, KimF’s identification card, name cards, etc. and stored them in copies after confirming them; (iii) the measurement certificate issued byCC Muu issued by the Plaintiff was indicated as “6.4, 8684, 765k” on the date; and (ii) it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s transactions were conducted in the 20-year off market, including the Plaintiff’s 10-year off market, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been negligent in purchasing the 20-year off market.

Then, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is decided to accept it, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.