Seoul High Court 2010Nu43763 (2011.07)

early 209 Heavy2741 ( December 10, 2009)

Since the nominal owner of the tax invoice was negligent in not knowing that he is not an actual supplier, no input tax deduction shall be made.

The Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice on the ground that the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice on the grounds that it received a tax invoice in the name of a legal entity while purchasing non-ferrous metals from an individual, and that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice, on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was aware of the fact that the data were frequently involved in the non-metallic metal transaction, received the business registration certificate and the copy of the passbook from an

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Du24835 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XXMM Co., Ltd.

Head of Si Tax Office

January 27, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal as to whether a false tax invoice is false

The lower court found facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that the instant tax invoice, which was a supplier of ○ Environment, constituted a tax invoice different from the actual supplier, on the invoice, because the Plaintiff actually supplied the instant non-ferrous metal from CheongB, not ○○ Environment Development (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Environment”). The lower court’s ground of appeal as to this part is merely an error of the lower court’s determination, but it is nothing more than an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding that belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal as to whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

Unless there are special circumstances, where a supplier and an actual supplier under a tax invoice are different, an input tax amount pursuant to a tax invoice may not be deducted or refundable unless the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is just to reject the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not know, or did not know, that the supplier was not the actual supplier, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the “ bona fide trader under the Value-Added Tax Act” as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Furthermore, even in a case where a tax invoice is different from the fact, the Plaintiff should deduct the input tax amount unless the supplier was grossly negligent in not knowing the nominal name of the person who was supplied with the tax invoice, but it cannot be accepted as a mere assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.