No input tax invoice received in the name of any business other than the actual supplier shall be deducted.

Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, it appears that the purchase tax invoice was issued in the name of another entrepreneur who is not a real entrepreneur, which is not a tax invoice different from the fact.

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 2,085, 210 won for the first quarter of 2002 against the Plaintiff on October 12, 2007, value-added tax of 2,395,010 won for the second quarter of 2002, value-added tax of 3,195,030 won for the first quarter of 2003, value-added tax of 5,816,940 won for the second quarter of 2003, value-added tax of 1,505,530 won for the first quarter of 204, value-added tax of 3,53,640 won for the second quarter of 204, value-added tax of 1,558,00 won for the first quarter of 205, and of 857,920 for the second quarter of 205.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the entries of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6-1 through 19, Eul evidence 1, 2-1, and 8:

A. In filing a return of value-added tax from the value-added tax on January 1, 2001 to the first half of 2005, the Plaintiff received 100,550,000 tax invoice of KRW 10,50 from 00,00 from 00 to 2003, and received 17 tax invoices of KRW 100,550,00 from 00 during the period from January 2004 to 2005, and received 50,830,000 from 0,000 (hereinafter “○○○○○○”) total supply value from 0,830,00 won (hereinafter “each of the above tax invoices”) and filed a return and payment of each of the above value-added tax.

B. After that, the Defendant: (a) deemed that each purchase tax invoice of this case was issued without real trade; and (b) deducted the input tax amount therefrom; and (c) issued the Plaintiff on October 12, 2007, the amount of value-added tax 2,085,210 won for the first quarter of 2002; (b) value-added tax 8,395,010 won for the second quarter of 2002; (c) value-added tax 3,195,030 won for the first quarter of 203; (d) value-added tax for the second quarter of 2003; (e) value-added tax 5,816,940 won for the second quarter of 204; and (e) value-added tax 1,53,640 won for the second quarter of 204; (e) value-added tax 1,58,000 won for the first quarter of 205; and (e) imposed tax amount for the second quarter of 2057.

C. On February 4, 2008, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal for adjudication on April 24, 2008.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was engaged in the transaction according to the purchase tax invoice of this case (hereinafter “the transaction in this case”), which is an entrepreneur who actually operates ○○○○○○○ and ○○○ △△ ice, and each of the purchase tax invoices of this case (hereinafter “the transaction in this case”). However, each of the purchase tax invoices of this case was issued under the name of ○○○ ○○○ and ○○ △△ ice, and the purchase price was deposited into the account of ○○ ○○, which is its wife, and even though the transaction partner could not interfere with the change of the name of the business operator according to its own convenience, the disposition

(b) Related statutes;

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

C. Determination

(1) Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, in cases where the entries in a tax invoice are different from the facts. In such cases, if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is only nominal and there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the person to whom such entry in a tax invoice is applied. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entry in a tax invoice does not coincide with the actual supplier, price, and time of the transaction, regardless of the formal entry in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, and if the actual supplier and the supplier are different, the tax invoice shall be deemed to be "where it is different from the fact" under the main sentence of Article 17(2)-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, the input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded.

(2) On the other hand, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff appears to have received each purchase tax invoice of this case in the name of ○○○○○ Port, ○○○○○○○ jum, which is another business entity, other than Kim ○○, even though he was aware that Kim ○○ was a business entity in the course of each transaction of this case. This constitutes a case where a part of the entries of the tax invoice under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act is entered differently from the fact, and such input tax amount is not deducted.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal violation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case, which was made by not deducting the input tax amount according to each purchase tax invoice of this case, is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.