Cho High Court Decision 2012 Deputy0857 (Law No. 28, 2012.09)

The tax invoice of this case is not recognized as the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence as a false tax invoice.

The Plaintiff has been operating the scrap metal business since August 2005, and did not verify whether the Plaintiff was equipped with the facilities, such as the field yard, in addition to the confirmation of the office of business parties, and did not submit specific and objective data to prove the real transaction. Thus, the Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault cannot be acknowledged.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax

AA Steel Co., Ltd.

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 23, 2013

August 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 1, 2011, the Defendant’s disposition of notice of correction issued by the value-added tax OOOOOO shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs a high-railroad retail business from November 8, 2007.

B. In 209, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in Chapter 7, which is the purchase tax invoice of the first and second specifications in 2009, from Nonparty DoD, who is engaged in scrap metal business under the trade name ofCC during the period of the first and second specifications in 2009, deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, and reported the tax amount payable for the first and second specifications in 2009.

C. The Defendant considered the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact, and issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff on July 1, 201 that the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice was not deducted from the output tax amount, and on July 1, 2011, the input tax amount for the first quarter of the Value-Added Tax for the year 2009 and the KRW OOO for the second quarter of the Value-Added Tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 2, 2012 on October 5, 201, but was dismissed on September 28, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including the number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff received a tax invoice through a normal transaction with DoD, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice.

2) Even if a supplier of the instant tax invoice stated differently from the facts, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been negligent in not knowing such fact and in not knowing it.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) We examine whether the instant tax invoice is different from the facts.

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. The meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts is the name of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation, and where there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 14(1) of the former Value-Added Tax (amended by Act No. 9915, Dec. 1, 201; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

In other words, the following circumstances are considered to have comprehensively taken into account the entire arguments in Eul evidence 7-1 to 3, Eul evidence 9-1 to 10, and Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, i.e., ① DoD is a person who has never been engaged in the business related to the scrap metal at all before commencing the business of CCS on December 18, 2008, and is not equipped with the necessary private place of business or storage related to the scrap metal business after CCS opening the business, and ② DoD was closed ex officio on October 13, 2009, and (2) was not related to the non-public place of business of this case for the reason that the Plaintiff was not charged with the non-public place of business until October 13, 2009, and was not related to the non-public place of business of this case for the reason that the Plaintiff paid the non-public place of business other than the non-public place of business of this case.

2) We examine whether the Plaintiff constitutes a trading partner in good faith.

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 person who received the other tax invoice was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

As to whether the plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case and was unaware of it, and whether there was no negligence, the testimony of the witness E is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following facts are considered to be taken into account: (i) the Plaintiff’s representative, who has been engaged in the scrap metal business from around August 2005 to the entire arguments; (ii) the Plaintiff appears to have been well aware of the supply structure and distribution channels of scrap metal; (iii) the general transaction type or method in the relevant industry; and (iv) the data transaction status and risk; (iii) the Plaintiff stated that CCS ethyl EX was OO 1287-16 at the time of tax investigation, but the above land was sold at voluntary auction on January 7, 2009, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was used as the CCS as the yeast site; and (iii) the Plaintiff did not have been aware of whether it was equipped with the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, other than the Plaintiff’s office, and the Plaintiff did not have been found to have been responsible for tax payment, but did not have any other specific and objective evidence to prove that it was not equipped with the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate and other tax invoice.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.