2012 middle 1657

It is difficult to conclude that the purchaser is not a party to a disguised transaction or a bona fide transaction solely on the sole basis of the fact that the purchaser was confirmed and accused.

The purchaser of this case is a disguised purchaser, and even if the tax invoice of this case is calculated differently from the facts, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party who was unaware of such circumstances and was not negligent due to negligence.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAB Binding Co., Ltd.

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

August 27, 2013

October 15, 2013

1. Each disposition imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2012 on the second year value-added tax of 2009, the first year value-added tax of 200, the second year value-added tax of 2010, the second year value-added tax of 2010, the first year corporate tax of 2009, the first year corporate tax of 200, and the first year corporate tax of 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

"The Director stated "OOO's amount imposed for the business year 2010" as the disposition, but it seems to be a clerical error." and the reasons.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that wholesales waste Dongs, etc. in OO-Eup OO-Eup 251, and has been converted from an individual entrepreneur (Amer Association) on September 18, 2008 and has been operated until now.

B. The Plaintiff received 223 copies of the tax invoice for purchase of OOOO (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) total of the supply values from the non-party corporation BB metal and five transaction parties (hereinafter “the purchaser of this case”) during the first taxable period from the second half to the second half of 2009, and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the above input tax amount in the pertinent taxable period, see the second page of the decision.”

C. On January 5, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and correction of the value-added tax amount for the second period of the Value-Added Tax for the year 2009, the first year of the Value-Added Tax for the year 2010, the second year of the Value-Added Tax for the year 2009, the OOOO for the corporate tax for the business year 2009, the OOO for the corporate tax for the business year 2009, and the OO for the corporate tax for the business year 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), under the premise that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact,” [the grounds for recognition], the following facts are without dispute, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 12-1, 13-3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In addition, the defendant was unable to prove that the purchaser of this case is a disguised purchaser, and there was no negligence in not knowing the fact that the purchaser of this case was a disguised purchaser at the time of receiving the tax invoice of this case, and there was no negligence in not knowing the fact that the purchaser of this case was a disguised purchaser. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. 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 nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

However, in this case, evidence No. 9-1, evidence No. 10, evidence No. 11-3, evidence No. 12-1 through 4, evidence No. 13-1 through 3, evidence No. 14-2, evidence No. 15-2, evidence No. 16-2, evidence No. 17-2, evidence No. 18-2, evidence No. 19-2, evidence No. 19-2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 20-2, evidence No. 21, 23 through 28, evidence No. 32, evidence No. 33, and evidence No. 40, evidence No. 12-1 through No. 3, evidence No. 13-1 through 3, evidence No. 14-2, and evidence No. 14-2, the plaintiff did not know of the result of the submission of financial transaction information to the national bank of this case as alleged by the defendant.

○ In trading with the instant purchasing agency, the Plaintiff received the business registration certificate, passbook, and the representative identification card, etc. of the said company, and visited the said place of business to verify whether the business was actually conducted (in the case of some companies that did not visit the place of business, it seems that there was no need for additional verification due to early isolation of transaction relations).

○ The Plaintiff, at the time of paying the price to the instant purchasing agency, took a method of directly remitting the money to the account in the name of the said company, and prepared the remittance account book.

The Plaintiff recorded the number of the transport vehicle, the name and contact point of the article, and the details of the guidance whenever the Plaintiff is supplied with the end-of-life, etc. from the purchaser of the instant case.

In the past, the Plaintiff was subject to administrative litigation as to whether to receive tax invoices different from the facts (Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu13752, Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap11914). However, there was no special difference between the above case and the transaction in this case.

○ Tax Tribunal made a decision of re-examination on the disposition of this case on the ground that there is room to regard the Plaintiff as a bona fide trading party.

Therefore, without examining the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, the defendant's disposition of this case should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.