early 2010 Heavy1095 ( November 18, 2010)

In fact, it is recognized as an actual transaction in light of the condition of resale by purchasing waste resources and the flow of funds.

A business registration certificate for customers, representative identification card, copy of passbook, etc. were confirmed, and each customer representative was present at all times, and the purchased waste Dong was recognized as a real purchase in light of the circumstances where the sales partner left and resells a certain amount of profit, and the flow of funds, etc., and there is no circumstance to suspect that the sales channel is abnormal, such as the purchase price of waste Dong is particularly low. Thus, it is recognized as good faith and without negligence.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

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

XXMM Co., Ltd.

Head of Suwon Tax Office

September 22, 2011

October 6, 2011

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on November 11, 2009 by KRW 117,268,950 in excess of KRW 42,281,517 in the imposition of value-added tax on KRW 117,268,950 in 208 and the imposition of value-added tax on KRW 210,115,760 in 2008 in excess of KRW 8,351,798 in each disposition shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-six of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 117,268,950 for the first term portion of 2008 against the Plaintiff on November 11, 2009 and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 210,115,760 for the second term portion of 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 64,37,250 in the taxable period of the first half of the value-added tax for the first half of the year 2008, as shown in attached Table 1, from ○○○○○○○ operated by KimB, totaling KRW 1,198,123,340 in the taxable period of the second half of the value-added tax in 2008. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoices of KRW 1,198,123,340 in the amount of the value-added tax for the second half of the year 2008, after it was established with the trade name of HM of the company △△△△△, Inc., Ltd. on March 25, 2008. The Plaintiff received the above purchase tax invoices of KRW 206,375,00 in each of the above input tax invoices from the Defendant as shown in attached Table 2.

B. The director of a regional tax office and the director of a regional tax office of the Dongdaemun-gu and the director of the regional tax office of the regional tax office of Jung-gu acknowledged ○○○○○○○ and the head of the regional tax office as materials and notified the Defendant of the investigation. Accordingly, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction on November 11, 2009 by deeming the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice written differently from the fact. On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff included the amount of KRW 117,268,950 (including the tax invoice of KRW 101,308,000 received by the Plaintiff from MD industry during the same taxable period, and the amount of tax under the non-deduction of the tax invoice of KRW 30,213,00,00 received from MD industry, and the amount of tax under the non-deduction of the tax invoice of KRW 30,213,000,000, which was received from MD industry).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 6, 2010, but the said appeal was dismissed on November 18, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was supplied with the closure of the instant tax invoice, such as the entry of the instant tax invoice, from 00 ○○○○ and △△ Metal, and thus, the instant tax invoice is not a tax invoice written differently from the fact.

2) Even if the Plaintiff was supplied with a closed-end Dong from a third party who disguiseded the name of ○○○ Mmbs and △△ Metal, and thus, even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact by the supplier, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and the Plaintiff was not aware of such fact, and thus, the Plaintiff

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) As to the ○○ domains

A) ○○○○○○○ was started on April 7, 2008 and closed ex officio on April 9, 2009. The representative of the business registration is KimB, the location of the place of business, 00-1, and the type of business is waste electrical recycling wholesale.

B) At the place of the above ○○○○○ Branch, a prefabricated-type warehouse is installed in a size of 30 square meters. The warehouse has a structure inappropriate to use the closed Dong as a place for storage or sale, and there is no trace of keeping the actual closed Dong. The representative KimB, who is the representative, did not possess basic facilities or equipment, such as an open-type box for operating the scrap metal business, a steel bars, and a straw-type store for transporting scrap metal.

C) A person who had been engaged in the wholesale and retail business of non-metallic metals prior to the opening of ○○ M&C. Around March 2008, KimB opened the ○○ M&C business upon receiving a proposal from OH to arrange for the work of supplying the waste transport from Haz, which was at the time when he had been earning income from his substitute driving, and opened the ○ M&C business in accordance with the direction of HaH. At the time of the purchase of the waste transport, KimB’s intention was confirmed by coloring the company that wants to purchase the waste transport agreement, he received the waste transport from the closed-dong holding company designated by HaH, delivered the tax invoice in the name of ○○ M&C, and received the price of the goods from the account opened in the name of ○○ M&C to ○○ M&C. A person who immediately distributed the deposit to several accounts, and then transferred the price of the goods to Ha-H, etc. in return for the additional materials purchased by Hu Kim Kim's order from M&D (small or its collection.).

D) From May 31, 2008 to October 14, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased 174,134 km of the closed-end 1,388,750,649 won (including value-added tax) as indicated in the first tax invoice of this case from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was found as a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a company, directly delivered 1 to the Plaintiff’s workplace using 1 ton of a group of goods, and B transferred 174,134 km of the representative of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was found as the representative of the branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a branch of a goods, loaded the goods to the Plaintiff’s workplace with an article of a cargo, and issued the specifications to B.

E) The Plaintiff transferred the total purchase amount of KRW 1,388,750,649 to the financial account in the name of ○○○○○○○○ Account on the date of preparation on the instant first tax invoice, and immediately thereafter, the Plaintiff transferred all the transferred money to the financial account in the name of ○○○○○ Account. The most of the transferred money was transferred to the eight accounts in the name of ○○○ KimB established after the opening of the ○○○○○ Account and the three accounts in the name of Y, and then withdrawn in cash in the amount of KRW 20,000,000.

F) From June 2, 2008 to October 15, 2008, the Plaintiff sold 100-550 won per kg to the △△ Metal Co., Ltd. or △△ Cable Oil Co., Ltd. with the profits of 100-550 won per kg.

G) Meanwhile, as a result of the tax investigation conducted by the director of the Central Regional Tax Office with respect to ○○○ ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○ was confirmed to have issued and issued the processed sales tax invoices of KRW 4,152,00,000 in total in 208 and received the processed sales tax invoices of KRW 25,00,000 in total. In addition, the reported waste resources purchase amount was found to have not been traded with the other party to the transaction.

2) △△ Metal

A) On February 9, 2007, 2007, 100.2.2.3 times the name of the corporation, the representative director, and the place of business were established with the trade name of HM Co., Ltd. (HM) and the name of the corporation was changed by three times as follows:

B) Article 200-62 Mapo-dong 201 of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the final place of business of △△△ metal, is the location of a business place operated by AL, “GD case,” and sub-lease 10 million won of the deposit. However, △△△ metal did not confirm the details of deposit and monthly payment, and there was no administrative office work of △△△△ metal.

다) 원고는 2008. 5.경 지인의 소개로 찾아온 ☆☆☆금속의 대표이사인 민NN을 만나 사업자등록증을 받고 법인등기부등본을 확인한 후 2008. 6. 2.부터 2008. 6. 13. 까지 ☆☆☆금속으로부터 이 사건 제2세금계산서 기재와 같이 합계 403,461,575원(부가가치세 포함)의 폐동 48,033kg을 매입하였는데, ☆☆☆금속 측에서 원고의 사업장으로 폐동을 직접 운반하거나 원고가 ☆☆☆금속의 임시작업장이라고 하는 화성시 팔달면 매곡리 000-10에 직접 가서 폐동을 운반하여 오기도 하였다. 그런데 화성시 팔달면 매곡리 000-10은 박PP이 'QQ자원'이라는 상호로 비철금속 도소매업을 운영하는 사업장 소재지로 등록된 곳이다.

D) The Plaintiff remitted the total purchase amount of KRW 403,461,575 to a financial account in the name of the name of the seller of the instant case or immediately before and after the date of preparation listed on each of the instant secondary tax invoices. Of the deposited money, KRW 384,905,00 out of the deposited money was returned to RR, ES, and TT account presumed to be the actual seller on the date of deposit, and the remainder was withdrawn in cash.

E) From June 2, 2008 to June 14, 2008, the Plaintiff sold 150-90 won per kg to the △△ Metal Co., Ltd. or △△ Cable Oil Co., Ltd. with the profits of 150-90 won.

F) Meanwhile, as a result of the tax investigation of the East-gu tax office △△△△△ Metal, the number of processed sales tax invoices of KRW 5,641,212,00 in total in 208 was confirmed to have received 26 copies of the processed sales tax invoices of KRW 5,554,120,000 in total, and was charged as data. Of the reported purchase amount of KRW 5,205,695,00 in total, KRW 5,148,539,000 in total amount of KRW 5,58,539,000 in total amount of KRW 98.9% in total.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 6 through 23, Eul Nos. 2 through 4, 7, 8, and 10, the witness KimB's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice written differently from the fact

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 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, such as the transaction contract, made between the parties to the goods or services.

B) First, as revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier, as to whether the first tax invoice of this case was written differently from the facts, 00% of the purchase amount was determined officially by the facts acknowledged earlier, and the 00% of the purchase amount was actually determined as the material, and it can be seen that the purchaser took over and transported the purchase to the purchasing company upon the closure of the closed-dong holding company designated by HaH, and the Plaintiff did not have the basic facilities for operating the business, and the Plaintiff did not have the basic facilities for operating the business. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s remittance amount to the account in the name of 00 ○○○○○○○○○, the actual supplier of the closed tax invoice of this case cannot be deemed as the 00 ○○○○, because it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as the actual supplier of the closed tax invoice of this case as the purchase amount to be the 1st tax invoice of this case. Accordingly, the supplier’s tax invoice of this case constitutes the tax invoice of this case.

C) Next, as revealed by the facts acknowledged earlier, as to whether the secondary tax invoice of this case was entered differently from the facts, △△ Metal, as it was based on the data confirmed by 98.9% of the purchase amount, is difficult to view that the Plaintiff actually secured the waste movement to supply the same as the indicated in the secondary tax invoice of this case. Moreover, △△ Metal appears to have not been equipped with the basic facilities capable of operating the business. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff transferred part of the amount transferred to the account in the name of △△△△ Metal metal, and the remainder was transferred to the person presumed to be the actual seller and withdrawn in cash, it is difficult to view that the actual supplier of the closed Dong on the entry in the secondary tax invoice of this case is the △△△△△△△ metal, and therefore, it constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact.

2) Whether the Plaintiff had acted in good faith and without negligence

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the name of the actual supplier and that there is no negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the said name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2

In addition, since there is no obligation to actively investigate whether a person who is supplied with goods or services is a disguised business operator, it shall be deemed that there is negligence on the part of the other party who is unaware of the fact that the other party is a disguised business operator only if there are sufficient circumstances to suspect that the other party is a disguised business operator based on the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other

B) First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff had acted in good faith and without fault on the title of the first tax invoice of this case. The following circumstances revealed in full view of the overall purport of the arguments revealed as above. In other words, the Plaintiff did not have any transaction relation with ○○○○○○○○○○ prior to the issuance of the first tax invoice of this case; the Plaintiff confirmed ○○○○○○○○○○○’s business registration certificate, representative KimB’s identification card, and the name of the head of passbook and KimB at the time of commencement of the transaction with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s business; and KimB did not have any specific circumstances to suspect the substance of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s business; Defendant transported the waste from the ○○○○○○○○○○, and was present at all times at the Plaintiff’s business place; in light of the situation where the Plaintiff purchased profits from another business entity and the trend of funds that the Plaintiff purchased from the ○○○○○○’s sales account.

C) Next, it is examined as to whether the Plaintiff had committed a bona fide and negligent act as to the title violation of the second tax invoice of this case.

In the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff did not have any transaction relation with the metal of this case before the date of issuance of the second tax invoice of this case. The Plaintiff proposed direct transaction with the NN on the corporate register of △△△△ Metal at the time of commencement of transaction with the metal of this case, and confirmed it by receiving the business registration certificate of △△△△ metal and a copy of passbook in the name of the head office of △△△△△, and the Plaintiff again sold the waste Dong purchased from the △△ metal to another company, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff actually purchased the waste Dong-dong equivalent to the purchase price of the second tax invoice of this case. According to the fact that the Plaintiff did not know that there was any abnormal transaction relation with the waste metal of this case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff did not have any specific transaction relation to the second tax invoice of this case as the main office of the △△△△△△△△△△△△, and the Plaintiff did not have any transaction relation to the second tax invoice of this case, but did not have any specific transaction relation to the second tax invoice of this case.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a trade party in good faith, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice on a different premise is unlawful.

3) Scope of revocation of the instant disposition

However, as seen earlier, the disposition of this case includes the tax amount calculated by non-deduction of the input tax amount for the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from other companies. The amount of value-added tax calculated by non-deduction of only the input tax amount for the first period of 17,268,950 as listed below. As such, the portion exceeding 74,987,434 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2008, and the amount exceeding 201,763,969 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2008, 2010,115,760 won, and the amount exceeding 201,763,969 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 208, 207, 2097, 307, 117, 2967, 2097, 1967, 2097.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.