early 2014-2066 ( December 31, 2014)

tax invoices received from data shall constitute a false tax invoice entered by the supplier, etc.

The evidence produced by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was actually supplied with a computer component on the instant tax invoice from the data, and the instant tax invoice falls under the tax invoice entered falsely by the supplier, etc., as there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Guhap4211 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

○ Stock Company

○ Head of tax office

November 13, 2015

December 11, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the value-added tax No. 1 of 2012 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 18, 2010, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 504,627,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from ○○○ (representative: ○○) during the first taxable period from February 13, 2012 to March 19, 2012, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice from the Defendant.

B. On September 1, 2013, the Defendant denied the deduction of the input tax amount of value-added tax based on the instant tax invoice pursuant to Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, deeming that the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice stating differently from the fact that the business operator’s registration number, name, or title to be supplied under Article 16(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) and issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff on September 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 28, 2014, but was dismissed on December 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff actually purchased computer parts from ○○○○○○○ and remitted money to an account in the name of the said transaction party, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice. Even if the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know the fact of false entries in the said tax invoice, but did not know such fact. Therefore, the instant disposition, which was based on a different premise, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

▣ 구 부가가치세법(2013. 6. 7. 법률 제11873호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a person liable for tax payment supplies goods or services, he/she shall issue an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, at the time specified in Article 9 (where Presidential Decree prescribes otherwise, referring to the time specified otherwise by Presidential Decree). In such cases, a tax invoice may be revised and issued, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation;

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

2. An input tax amount, where a tax invoice under Article 16 (1), (2), (4) and (5) is not issued, or all or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as "necessary matters to be entered") are not entered or entered differently from the fact on the tax invoice issued: Provided, That the input tax amount in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) ○○○○ was opened on January 31, 2012 and closed ex officio on June 30, 2012.

2) The representative yellow ○○○○○○○○○○ Building’s representative store leased 509 ○○ building, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the place of business of which is located in its business registration, from January 31, 2012 to January 30, 2013, but the actual occupancy period was only two months from January 31, 2012 to March 30, 2012, and the said ○○○○ building’s rental manager stated that the said ○○○○ was not deemed to have worked in the said place of business or to have not carried in computer-related goods for the said two months.

3) The name of the ○○○○○○○’s representative is written separately between the address of the head office and 509 ○○ building as Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul: the address of the head office and the store address (Seoul Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 2 ○○-dong 132).

4) On March 19, 2012, ○○○○ deposited the sales amount of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ out of its own bank account, and immediately withdrawn it in cash or deposited it into another bank account in cash, and thereafter there was no balance in each of the bank accounts thereafter.

5) The Plaintiff’s general purchase amount was KRW 000 at the time of filing the first final return in 201; KRW 000 at the time of filing the second preliminary return in 201; KRW 002 at the time of filing the second preliminary return in 201; KRW 0,000 at the time of filing the first preliminary return in 201; and KRW 000 at the time of filing the first preliminary return in 2012.

6) On February 16, 2013, Gangnam-do District Prosecutors' Office accused ○○○, the representative of ○○○○○ on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice). The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office rendered a disposition suspending prosecution against ○○ on August 6, 2013 due to the unknown whereabouts of the suspect.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

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

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer, it refers to a case where the necessary entries in a tax invoice do not coincide with the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or the price and time of the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service. The fact that the tax invoice submitted by the person liable to pay value-added tax based on the input tax has been falsely prepared without the actual transaction, or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact, it is proved by the tax office that it is a real purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice, and if it is proved that the transaction with the supplier as stated in the tax invoice recommended by the person liable to pay taxes is false, it is necessary to prove that the taxpayer has actually traded with the supplier as stated in the tax invoice, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, as to whether the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the computer components from ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. stated as a supplier in the instant tax invoice, the following circumstances, i.e., (i) revealed that the instant tax invoice was a data on which a false tax invoice was issued during the taxable period in which the instant tax invoice was issued, and (ii) that the amount deposited by ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd, including the Plaintiff, was completely deposited in cash from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.; and (iii) the Plaintiff did not submit a goods supply contract or goods supply ledger that can support the purchase of the computer components from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and specific evidence that the Plaintiff actually purchased and stored the purchased goods from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd.; and (iv) lack of sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was actually supplied from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. for a period exceeding KRW 500,010, Mar. 19, 2012.

2) 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 fact that the supplier was unaware of the name entered in the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name entered in the tax invoice, a person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277,

In light of the above legal principles, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the supplier is the actual supplier or not if the operator of the computer parts is an operator of the retail company because it is difficult to trace the distribution channel of the computer parts and to conceal them due to high exchange of exchangeability. ② The Plaintiff operated a retail business of the computer parts by around May 2010 and around 2 years before March 2012, which is the time of the instant taxation. The Plaintiff’s practice did not appear to have been engaged in the above business for a considerable period of time in light of the Plaintiff’s statement that ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Building was not a mere mere mere mere fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff had been engaged in a transaction with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Building upon introduction by a person assisting in the business of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Building, which appears to have been an actual transaction with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Building.

3. Conclusion

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

judgment.