Suwon District Court 2016Guhap61366 ( December 01, 2016)

Early High Court Decision 2015J 4470 ( December 07, 2015)

propriety of a disposition imposing value-added tax, etc. on a false tax invoice;

In light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that a bona fide trading party has fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide trading party, such as the failure to verify a fact different from the address of the place of business, even though the claimant received three times the amount of scrap metal purchased from the existing main purchaser from the drown, etc., the claim company did not err by regarding the issue tax invoice as a false tax invoice and imposing value-added tax.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu3148 (Law No. 11, 2017)

Co., Ltd.*

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap31366 Decided December 01, 2016

2017.03.21

1, 2017.04

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Defendant’s value-added tax for the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015, KRW 320,495,090, 2013, which was assessed against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2013

2. Value-added tax: 1,630, 235,450, value-added tax for one year, 2014; 173,268,760, and 2013 business years;

Corporate tax belonging to the Do 221,054,660 won, and corporate tax belonging to the business year 20,357,010 won, respectively.

Sector shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against which the plaintiff seeks cancellation below shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s value-added tax for the Plaintiff on July 9, 2015, KRW 267,427,128, and KRW 2,013, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on July 9, 2013

1,351,723,420 won, value-added tax for one year, 2014; 142,73,231 won, and 2013 business years;

Disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 221,054,660, and corporate tax of KRW 20,357,010 for the business year 2014

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following matters to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the

○ The last page of the 9th decision of the first instance court, followed by adding the following contents to the following [The three request for transportation expenses of scrap metal issued to the Plaintiff around April 2013, which is the initial transaction with Aa industry, is the first day of transaction with the Plaintiff, is written as the "scarin Scarin, not the commercial price, which is the seat of the A industry" (No. 3) (No. 1)

○ On the 10th day of the first instance judgment, the following additional contents are “......” The A industry begins to supply scrap metal to the Plaintiff from April 2013 to March 2013, 2013 after the opening of the business on January 20, 2013. The scrap metal purchased by the Plaintiff from the A industry during 2013 exceeds 30% of the total purchase volume, which is three times the total purchase volume (Evidence 2).

○ On 10th of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the second instance judgment:

⑤ From March 2014, the Plaintiff suspended the transaction with a A industry and commenced the transaction with a cethyl. However, the representative cchlorod stated to the effect that, upon the investigation under the suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the Plaintiff merely carried out the management such as lending resident registration certificates, cethyls, etc. for business registration upon the request of the representative Kim e of the Ma industry, and opening an account for business registration and issuing an OTP card (Evidence 2, No. 4-1 and No. 4-5). In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff appears to have known that the Plaintiff continued the transaction by changing the name of Kim e in the name of the A industry while making a transaction under the name of the cethyle.

6) The Plaintiff’s sales are againstff steel with at least 90% of the sales of the Plaintiff, and even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff operates a business by operating the sales in a way that the Plaintiff directly transports the scrap metal from the purchasing place, without having a separate scrap metal storage. According to this, the Plaintiff’s basic role is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s distribution and securing of the number of suppliers (purchases) to be supplied to a specific large volume of sales place; and (b) in light of the Plaintiff’s business type, at least the Plaintiff is liable for the lawful operation of an individual supplier of the scrap metal.

7) The Plaintiff was recognized as a bona fide trader in the pre-assessment review with respect to scrap metal transactions with two companies, including g resources, and the type of transaction is the same as the transaction between the instant A industry and cethyl, and thus, the instant transaction ought to be recognized in good faith. According to the evidence No. 12, the Plaintiff is recognized as a bona fide trader in the pre-assessment review with respect to scrap metal transactions with two companies, including gg resources, etc., on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff was judged as a bona fide trader in the pre-assessment review. However, such circumstance is related to the taxable period from February 2, 2011 to January 201, 201, and the total size of the transaction is less than KRW 100 million. Thus, it is inappropriate to simply compare the transaction with the instant case from January 2, 2013 to January 1, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a bona fide trader in this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.