Whether there was negligence on the part of the small president at the time of issuance of the tax invoice from the small president companies, and that the small president companies were not aware of the disguised business.

The fact that the person who received the supply was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name, the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove it. It is insufficient to recognize that the person did not know or did not know the fact that each of the tax invoices of this case was nominal, and there is no evidence to prove it otherwise.

2014Guhap3427 Disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

Head of North Busan District Tax Office

February 27, 2015

March 27, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's disposition of imposition of the additional corporate tax for the business year 2009, which was corrected and notified to the plaintiff on September 16, 2013, among the OOO directors, OO directors among the OO directors of the corporate tax for the business year 2010, the additional tax for the second period of the value-added tax (which is applicable to the output tax for calculating the value-added tax, but is also deemed to have been mistakenly stated as the value-added tax because it is stated as the calculated tax amount on the tax payment notice; hereinafter the same shall apply) among OO directors and additional tax OO directors among the OO directors of the first period of the value-added tax for the year 2010, OO directors among the OO directors and additional tax for the second period of the year 2010, and OO directors and additional tax for the second period of the OO directors and additional tax for the 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the Plaintiff’s consolidated investigation of corporate tax from the business year of 2008 to the business year of 2012, the head of Seosan Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of the remaining OOOO members, excluding those of the OOOO members confirmed by the processing transaction, among the supply price tax invoices of the OOO members, from four companies such as BB industry,CC industry, DD industry, and EE industry during the taxable period of value-added tax from the second to the second period of year of 2009 to the second period of year of 2011 (hereinafter “small president company”), and notified the Defendant of the relevant taxation data.

B. Accordingly, on September 16, 2013, the Defendant denied the deduction of the pertinent input tax amount and imposed an additional tax due to non-issuance of the expenditure certificate, and accordingly included the Plaintiff in corporate tax for the business year 2009, OOO(including additional tax OOO) for the business year 2010, OOO(including additional tax OOO) for the business year 2011, OOO(including additional tax OOOO) for the second period for the second year for the year 2009, OOO(including additional tax) for the first period for the first year for the year 2010, 2010, OOOO(including additional tax OOOO) for the second period for the second year for the year 2010, 2011, OO2000 and 10000 additional tax for the first year for the second year for the second year for the year 2010, O2010

C. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the Busan Regional Tax Office, but was dismissed on January 17, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal regarding the said taxation for the business year 2009 and the business year 2010 among the said taxation dispositions, and for the second period from the second period from 2009 to 2010 (hereinafter “each taxation disposition”), but was dismissed on July 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 8, 10, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Since 209 to 2010, the Plaintiff did not know that the president company was a disguised business at the time when the Plaintiff received a tax invoice from the small president company and did not know that it was a disguised business, each of the instant taxation dispositions by the Defendant was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

① NewF and YG established a sub-president company in the name of Kim HH and Jeon II, etc. within the Plaintiff’s place of business as listed below, and jointly operated from May 1, 2008 to May 31, 2010. After the Plaintiff’s extension of the secondary factory, the YG operated the sub-president company in the name of the former II and Kim H, and the newF operated the sub-president company in the name of the YJ.

Trade Name

Project period

Title holder

Actual Business Operator

Reversion

BB industry

From May 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009

FF

FF

1, 2008

Second Period, 2008

1, 2009

BB industry

From July 1, 2009 to January 11, 2010

H Kim H

xGG, NewF

Second Period, 2009

CC Industry

From January 20 to December 31, 2010

Section II

YG, NewF (in the month of May)

1, 2010

2010 Second Period

D Industry

From June 1, 2010 to January 10, 2011

JJ

FF

1, 2010

2010 Second Period

1, 2011

EE Industry

From January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012

H Kim H

xGG

1, 2011

2011 Second Period

BB industry

From January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012

FF

FF

1, 2011

2011 Second Period

② Before the establishment of the small president company, the YG and new FF worked as an employee of the Plaintiff. At the time of operating the small president company using another’s name, the YG and new FF requested the Plaintiff’s accounting officer to issue a tax invoice.

③ Kim HH and Jeon II, who lent the name, worked as daily workers at the small president company that the KG and NewF operate as the actual business.

④ The Song JJ, Kim HH, and Jeon II implemented the disposition of notification in accordance with the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the ground of the above nominal name lending.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

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

Based on the above legal principles, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of each of the tax invoices of this case and was negligent in not knowing the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of each of the tax invoices of this case, the Plaintiff’s representative director was aware of the fact that the actual business owner of the small-scale company at the time of undergoing an investigation in relation to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Eul’s evidence No. 9, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering: ① GG was the actual business owner of the small-scale company, and the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the actual business owner of the small-scale company was the YG and new FF, Kim HH, Jeon II, and Song J, and there were no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that there was any negligence in the name of each of the small-scale company in the name of each of the instant tax invoices of this case.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.