The plaintiff is a person subject to good faith's negligence.

The Plaintiff did not know that the name of the supplier of the instant tax invoice was different from that of the actual supplier, and did not know such fact as the Plaintiff breached its duty of care in the transaction.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-106072 ( March 21, 2017)

(State)OO

○ Head of tax office

August 24, 2017

September 21, 2017

1. The Defendant’s principal tax on September 2, 2014 for the Plaintiff on September 2, 2011, 2,626,058,967 won

portion exceeding KRW 2,592,502,587 in the disposition of imposition, and additional corporate tax for the year 2011

The portion exceeding 464,203,553 won among the disposition of imposition of KRW 470,914,823, and the corporate tax for the year 2012

Additional tax exceeds KRW 93,764,00 among the amount of KRW 237,305,710, and the amount of KRW 93,764,00 on September 1, 2015 by the Plaintiff

1,618,106,579 of the imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 1,641,743,689 in 201

Imposition of more than KRW 422,576,065 of the principal tax for one year 2012, the imposition of value-added tax

more than 314,531,925 won, additional tax of value-added tax of 1 year 2012 389,109,105 won

The amount exceeding 318,837,205 won among dispositions, and the principal tax of value-added tax for the second period in 2012

Part exceeding KRW 593,243,752 among the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,202,908,162, and two additional values in 2012

The imposition of a penalty tax of KRW 362,872,250 shall be revoked in all.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a subsidiary company of A training Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "A training").

Companies running the manufacture, sale, etc. of non-ferrous metal recycling materials, and they are the Plaintiff on May 1, 2015.

Note B BB, a subsidiary of AD, was merged (hereinafter referred to as State)

The food company B BB and the plaintiff are not distinguished, but the plaintiff is referred to as the "Plaintiff".

B. The second addition in 201 in the course of purchasing ices supplied to A.

CCC and shares from the taxable period of value tax to the second taxable period of value tax in 2012

The second value-added tax for the year 201 from the Company CCC (hereinafter referred to as the “CCC”)

The value of supply in the taxable period of 335,563,800, and the value of supply in the first taxable period of 2012.

1,080,441,400 won, and 6,096,644,120 won in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case") were delivered, and the input tax amount according to the tax invoice was deducted and the defendant filed a return and paid the value-added tax and corporate tax on the defendant.

C. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff actually did so from another supplier who is not the customer of the instant case.

I purchased the tax invoice of this case on the ground that it is not true that the tax invoice of this case was a tax invoice of this case, and revised and notified each of the value-added tax (value-added tax and additional tax) and corporate tax (value-added tax and additional tax) as stated in the [Attachment 14.9.2] column, as stated in the tax invoice of this case. (hereinafter "each of the above value-added tax and the disposition of correction and notification of corporate tax" are referred to as "each of the above dispositions of this case."

D. On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case, requested a trial to the Tax Tribunal.

However, it was dismissed on October 7, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 97 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply),

The purport of all pleadings

2. Object of the instant lawsuit

(a) Where a corrective disposition is taken, the subject of litigation;

Where there is a correction disposition after a tax disposition has been issued, the original disposition for the correction shall be taken.

only the portion exceeding the tax base and tax amount in the initial disposition shall be further confirmed without being kept as it is.

not specified in the original disposition, but to include the tax base and tax amount in the original disposition as a whole

Since the tax standards and tax amounts are re-determined, the initial disposition is incorporated into the disposition of increase or decrease, so that it is reasonable to do so.

shall be extinguished and only the disposition of increase or decrease shall be subject to appeal litigation. This shall be the first time when the increase or decrease is corrected.

Inasmuch as the difference between the amount of decision and the amount of tax are not reported or imposed separately and the amount of tax assessed independently, but the substance is a disposition that gives favorable effect to taxpayers, such as changing the original return or disposition of tax imposition and cancelling part of the amount of tax, and thus, the substance is a disposition that gives favorable effect to taxpayers, and thus, the relevant decision of tax correction remains unlawful, the subject of an appeal litigation is the remainder that is not revoked by the original return or disposition of tax imposition, and the decision of tax reduction is not subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu8904, Nov. 15, 19

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the purport of Gap evidence and the whole arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 98, 99, 104, 105, 106

On September 1, 2015, the first day of 2016, December 28, 2016, and May 1, 2017, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) each of the following: [15.9 1], [16 first disposition], [16. 28], and [17. 17. 1], the following facts can be acknowledged: (b) the Plaintiff’s correction and notification of value-added tax and corporate tax, as stated in the [Attachment 15. 1], [16. 28], and [17. 1. 5. 1. ] column.

(c) Principal tax of value-added tax for the second year of 201: 2,626,058,967 won of the principal tax of value-added tax for September 2, 2014;

As seen earlier, as to the principal tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2011, the defendant is specified in the attached Form.

In the case of paragraph (1) of "the reasons for the imposition of the person", the reduction or correction was made as stated in the [16. initial disposition] column.

The subject of this lawsuit pertaining to the principal tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2011 is determined to be corrected.

The value-added tax on September 2, 2014 remaining after being revoked is the principal tax of 2,626,058,967 won (attached Form).

In regard to the principal tax of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2011 among paragraph (1) of the "e grounds for imposition" [the disposition dated September 1, 15]

and [16.12. 28. 28.) The stated amount is less than 10 won and the changed amount is less than 10 won.

Since it appears to have occurred in this context, it shall not be considered as reduction or correction.

(d) Additional value-added tax for the second year of 201: 1,641,743,689 won of the value-added tax for September 1, 2015;

As seen earlier, the defendant with respect to the penalty tax for the second period of value added tax in 201

The details of the imposition of value-added tax on September 1, 2012 were amended as stated in [15.9.1] column, and revised as stated in [16. initial disposition] and [16.12.28] column. Accordingly, the subject of the instant lawsuit regarding the additional value-added tax on the second-year value-added tax in 201 was KRW 1,641,743,689, which was the value-added tax on September 1, 2015, which was not revoked by a decision of reduction.

(e) Principal tax of value-added tax for the first year of 2012: Value-added tax for the principal tax on September 1, 2015;

As seen earlier, as to the principal tax for the first period of value added tax in 2012, the defendant is specified in the attached Form.

Of the grounds for imposition of race tax, Paragraph 2 [Disposition dated September 1, 15] was amended as stated in the statement. Accordingly, the subject of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the principal tax of value-added tax for the first period of 2012 is KRW 422,576,065 as of September 1, 2015 (attached Form hereinafter referred to as the detailed grounds for imposition of value-added tax), among Paragraph 1, the term "in relation to the principal tax of value-added tax for the first period of 2012 (Disposition No. 17 May 1, 2017)" is less than 10 won and the changed amount is deemed to have occurred in the course of a single disposition, and thus, it shall not be deemed

F. The first value-added tax in 2012: (a) the Defendant revised the first value-added tax in 2012 as stated in [Attachment 389,109,105] section 2 of [Attachment 15] section [Disposition 28, 16.1]; and (b) the amount of the first value-added tax in 2012 as stated in the column for correction. Accordingly, the subject of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the first value-added tax in 2012 is KRW 389,109,105 without being revoked by the determination of correction.

(g) Principal tax for the second year value-added tax: The principal tax for value-added tax on September 1, 2015; 1,202,908,162 won;

As seen earlier, as to the principal tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2012, the defendant is specified in the attached Form.

Of the grounds for imposition of seal, Paragraph 3 [Disposition dated September 1, 15] was amended as stated in the statement. Accordingly, the subject of the instant lawsuit regarding the principal tax of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2012 is KRW 1,202,908,162 as of September 1, 2015 (attached Form 3), and the subject of the instant lawsuit is KRW 1,202,908,162 as of the principal tax of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2012 (attached Form 3). Since the changed amount is less than 10 won and the changed amount is deemed to have occurred in the course of a single disposition, it shall not be deemed an increase

(h) Additional tax of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2012: 362,872,250 won of value-added tax for September 1, 2015;

As seen earlier, the defendant with respect to the penalty tax for the second period of value added tax in 2012 is attached Form 2.

The details of the imposition of value-added tax in paragraph (3) of the [15.9.1] were amended as stated in the column of [15.9.1], and revised as stated in the column of [16.12.28] and [17.5.1].] The subject of the instant lawsuit pertaining to the additional value-added tax in 2012 was KRW 362,872,250 of value-added tax as of September 1, 2015, which was not revoked by the decision of correction.

(i) Additional corporate tax accrued in 2011: 470,914,823 won as corporate tax accrued in September 2, 2014;

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s specific disposition of imposition of the corporate tax for the year 201 shall be as follows.

The details of the instant lawsuit regarding corporate tax for the year 201 are KRW 470,914,823 of the corporate tax on September 2, 2014, which was not revoked by the decision of reduction.

(j) Defendant’s assertion and judgment

1) The Defendant’s disposition dated September 1, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”) is related to the transaction with the Plaintiff and the instant transaction partner.

Since it is a disposition entirely different from the disposition in this case, it is not reasonable to do so, and therefore, on September 2, 2014

No disposition is absorption. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s disposition as of September 2, 2014 is still subject to this case’s lawsuit.

This article argues to the purport that "......" is the object of agenda.

The disposition dated September 1, 2015 differs from the disposition of September 2, 2014 and the tax liability unit.

a disposition that is not a disposition made in sequence but a disposition that is made in the same taxable and taxable period;

Value-added tax for the second period of 201, the principal tax and additional tax for the first period of 2012, and the year 2012

The disposition of September 2, 2014 concerning the principal tax and additional tax for the second period of value-added tax shall be imposed on September 1, 2015.

It is reasonable to view that it is absorption.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

2) The Defendant’s disposition on September 1, 2015 was fully revoked according to the decision of the Tax Tribunal.

There is no substance about the disposition of imposition. Accordingly, the disposition as of September 2, 2014 cannot be absorbed into the disposition as of September 1, 2015, and the plaintiff still must make the disposition as of September 2, 2014 as the object of the lawsuit in this case.

According to the above, each value-added tax of the second half of 201, the first half of 2012, and the second half of 2012 has increased according to the Defendant’s disposition on September 1, 2015, but the Defendant was on December 28, 2016.

In accordance with the disposition of May 1, 2017, the fact that the above increased amount has been reduced in full is recognized.

However, the portion of the tax increased by the disposition of September 1, 2015 is subsequent to December 28, 2016.

or even if a disposition was revoked or reduced by a disposition made on May 1, 2017, the disposition made on September 2, 2014 initially constitutes a part of the disposition for increase or decrease due to absorption into a disposition for increase or correction on September 1, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the disposition as of September 2, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du4855, Mar. 29, 2012) still exists, or that the disposition as of September 1, 2015 does not exist any longer by the subsequent corrective measure as of September 1, 2015 is groundless.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff: (1) The Plaintiff was actually from the business partner of this case, such as the tax invoice of this case.

Since the tax invoice of this case was purchased and supplied with the same, the tax invoice of this case is different from the fact.

(2) The tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, even if

Even if the Plaintiff did not know such fact and did not know such fact.

It argues that there is no negligence.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Whether the instant tax invoice is false

1) Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act is different from the fact that entries in the tax invoice are entered.

the tax invoice shall not be deducted from the output tax amount.

The meaning that the content of the tax invoice is different from the fact is that the requisite entry of the tax invoice is goods or

Despite the formal descriptions of a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties with respect to services;

They shall be mutually between the entities that actually supplies or are supplied with such goods or services and the values, timing, etc. thereof.

We refer to cases that are not limited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996).

a series of transactions which cause a specific transaction to be subject to the Value-Added Tax Act.

whether the transaction is due or not shall belong to the purpose, circumstances, and manner of the transaction and to the profits of the transaction party for each transaction.

주체, 대가의 지급관계 등 여러 사정을 종합하여 개별적��구체적으로 판단하여야하며,

transaction is a nominal transaction for which no substantial delivery or transfer of goods is made;

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act where the tax invoice received in the course of transaction is denied the deduction of input tax amount.

In principle, the burden of proving that the tax invoice constitutes a "tax invoice different from the facts provided for in subparagraph 2 of Paragraph 2 shall be borne by the tax authority (referring to the case of Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13446 Decided June 23, 2009, etc.).

2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed in light of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, witness ddd and e’s testimony and the overall purport of the pleadings, the transaction partner of the instant case supplied the plaintiff with scoops as described in the tax invoice of the instant case.

It is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff is a third party, not the transaction partner of the instant case, and the Plaintiff does so.

upon receipt of the supply, the supplier has received the tax invoice of this case stated as the customer of this case.

It is reasonable to see that the tax invoice of this case is merely a 'tax invoice entered differently from the fact'.

① e, a representative of the Customer of this case, is from August 15, 1998 to December 15, 2004

In the trade name of "ff", only was engaged in a signboard manufacturing business and an indoor interior interior decoration fishery business, and from January 11, 2010 to "CCC", housing construction business, etc. was conducted on April 201.

1. From June 2012, a corporation established CCC (CCC) around June 2012, commencing a wholesale and retail business of scrap metal and scrap metals. Accordingly, e e prior to engaging in transactions with the Plaintiff is related to scoops.

There was no experience in the type of business.

② The sales table of the Customer of this case was No. 2,577 million won in 201, and No. 1 in 2012

23,356 million won, second class 37,449 million won in 2012, compared to when operating a housing construction business.

In running the wholesale and retail business of scrap metal and scrap metal, the rapid rapid increase was made.

(3) The property that needs considerable amount of funds, etc. to engage in the wholesale business of the same scoops even though it is necessary.

In light of the state, etc., e was financially capable of operating the e wholesale business of scoops.

It is doubtful to see that it is true.

(4) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) against e.

On March 26, 2014 and October 31, 2014, the prosecution issued a disposition of "no suspicion on the grounds of lack of evidence" on the grounds of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the head of the gg tax office conducted a tax investigation on the grounds that "no suspicion was made on the grounds of data" on June 21, 2012. However, such circumstance is merely a mere fact that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the facts constituting the crime of the relevant case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the transaction partner of the instant case, based on the existence of such circumstance, is also against the fact that the Plaintiff is the supplier of grap, etc., as described in the tax invoice of this case.

E. Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault

1) A person who is supplied with another tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice;

The name of this account statement was not known, and there was no negligence on the part of that account statement.

Unless there are circumstances, the person who receives the input tax shall not be entitled to deduct or refund the input tax, and the person who receives it shall

The input tax amount shall be deducted or refunded in the absence of negligence on the part of the person who was unaware of his name.

The claimant must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

However, for waste resources such as scoops, the distribution structure and the characteristics of the transaction shall be used;

There is a duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business operator.

As such, data to determine whether the other party constitutes a qualified person for transaction.

in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting them, the other party is suspected to be a disguised business operator.

the other party’s failure to know that the other party is a disguised business

At fault (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 1997).

2) Each entry and pleading set forth in Gap's 3 to 16, 19 to 95, and 107 to 117 shall be taken as a whole.

In full view of the following circumstances known to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s subscription to the tax invoice of this case

The name of the supplier was not known to the effect that the name of the supplier was different from that of the actual supplier, and that the transaction was made.

Since he fulfilled his duty, it is reasonable to deem that he was not negligent in not knowing such fact.

① The transaction partner of the instant case had been employed as the place of business the office located in Daegu Suwon-gu Housing, and had one accounting staff at the place of business, and had storage in Daegu-gu East & & & & -3.

There were one mooring vehicle, two vehicles (one ton vehicle), one container office, and other business facilities.

② The Plaintiff’s business operator prior to commencing the transaction with the instant transaction partner.

A copy of a certificate of registration, copy of a deposit passbook, e's resident registration certificate, e's name, and certificate of tax payment;

The representative of the Customer is the same as e, while the Plaintiff is also with e.

In order to visit the site of the customer, it was also possible to directly check the actual objects of the ice rap.

③ The Plaintiff, whenever purchasing scoops from the business partner of the instant case, shall make an allocation of internal components.

In addition, the location of the scooby using GPS was displayed.

④ The Plaintiff is entitled to value-added tax on the transaction price for the copper rap supplied by the instant transaction partner.

The purpose of this case’s transaction is to evade taxes using so-called “data” or “dispact trader” is to avoid taxes using a false tax invoice, and according to the facts cited earlier and evidence, etc., the Plaintiff is deemed to have paid the full amount of the transaction price and the value-added tax thereon through the bank account of the instant transaction. If the Plaintiff paid the value-added tax, etc. even though the transaction with the instant transaction partner was “dispact transaction,” the Plaintiff is deemed to have incurred the risk of double payment of value-added tax, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the transaction price and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax was refunded.

⑤ The instant tax invoice, measurement certificate, purchase product, and GPS location submitted by the Plaintiff

Only with the existence of confirmation data, certificates of storage, etc., the transaction party of this case actually to the Plaintiff

Even if it cannot be readily determined that the instant tax invoice was supplied, insofar as all the items, weight (the aggregate of the quantities stated in the instant tax invoice and the actual weight of the measurement certificate are almost identical), time of measurement, driver’s name and contact details are written, and circumstances to suspect that such contents were subsequently manipulated are not confirmed, there is sufficient room to deem that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, was believed to have been actually supplying the instant trade wrap to the Plaintiff (this case’s measurement certificate is false in light of the fact that the actual weight stated in the measurement certificate exceeds the maximum loading capacity of the transport vehicle, and that the GPS position coordinate is not the open-air of the instant transaction party, and thus is false. However, in light of the fact that it is not impossible to carry the freight exceeding the maximum loading capacity, and that there is an error depending on the time and place of entry, the data submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to have been false, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise).

① The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against e, a representative of the Customer of this case

On March 26, 2014, the prosecution shall issue a false tax invoice, etc. or the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

In addition, on October 31, 2014, on the ground of the lack of evidence, the g chief of the tax office made a disposition 'not guilty', and the g chief of the tax office made the disposition.

On June 21, 2012, a tax investigation was conducted with the content that "no suspicion of data exists".

(7) The transaction of the same scoops shall be conducted in each of the places where the transport cost reduction and the intermediate wholesale for transaction convenience are reduced.

동스크랩을 수집하여 이를 자기의 사업장에 상��하차하지 않고, 직접 동스크랩을 싣고

as in this case, the delivery and receipt of the accounts and the issuance of the tax invoice at the delivery office

there is also a case in which the city is located.

8. The transaction partner of the instant case at the time the Plaintiff made the transaction with the transaction partner of the instant case

Inasmuch as it cannot be deemed that there was any special circumstance to suspect that the Plaintiff is a party to the instant transaction, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was negligent in the transaction, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not frequently verify the current status of the business place of the instant transaction partner or whether the cash for the transaction proceeds was immediately withdrawn from the said transaction.

F. Sub-decision

Thus, the Defendant’s tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice.

Since the non-deduction of each of the above input tax amounts under the tax invoice is erroneous, the deduction shall be made.

as the plaintiff seeks, the defendant, as the plaintiff seeks, shall be entitled to the reasonable tax amount.

On September 2, 2014, value-added tax imposed at KRW 2,626,058,967 for the Plaintiff on September 2, 2011

portion exceeding KRW 2,592,502,587 among the portion, and additional corporate tax for the year 201 470,914,823

The amount exceeding 464,203,553 won in the disposition of imposition, and additional corporate tax for the year 2012 237,305,710

The portion exceeding KRW 93,764,00 among the Won, and the second half of September 1, 2015 against the Plaintiff

The portion exceeding KRW 1,618,106,579 in the disposition imposing a value-added tax of KRW 1,641,743,689;

Value-added tax for one year 2012 exceeds 314,531,925 won in the disposition of imposition of KRW 422,576,065.

Part, 318,837,205 won in the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 389,109,105 for one year 201

Excess, the imposition of the principal tax of value-added tax for 2 years 2012, 1,202,908,162

593,243,752 won higher, and 362,872,250 won additional tax of value-added tax of two years 2012

All dispositions shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.