Suwon District Court 201Guhap10370 ( November 02, 2012)

early 2010 Heavy3902 (Law No. 19, 2011)

No good faith or negligence of the plaintiff who received a false tax invoice shall be recognized.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had been engaged in the closed-end sales business for not less than ten years, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence cannot be recognized in light of the following: (a) the actual state of the transaction in data and the risk of the transaction was well known; (b) the transaction period was not more than twice for two months, but the transaction amount was higher; and (c) the Plaintiff did not confirm at all the route

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu3545 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAA Industry Corporation

Head of Central Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap10370 Decided November 2, 2012

May 1, 2013

May 22, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 on October 1, 2010, and ② the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 1, 2009 and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of February 1, 201 and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 200 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This court's ruling is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the revision of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2.

2. Determination

A. Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is different from the facts

(1) Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011); Article 17(2)2 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 201) provides that an input tax amount in a case where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, shall not be excluded from the output tax amount; however, it means that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, and where a person who actually belongs to another person exists, the person to whom the tax invoice actually belongs shall be liable to pay taxes in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 196Nu1667, Jun. 1, 196).

(2) In light of the above light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the closeddong as described in the tax invoice in this case, and even if the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the closeddong with others other than BB eb B ebs, it is judged that the supplier was merely issued the tax invoice in this case, and that the first and second tax invoices in this case are those listed falsely by the supplier, which are different from the facts or facts from the tax invoice in fact. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the first and second tax invoices in this case are those listed falsely by the supplier and are different from the facts. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(A) The owner of BBmers, who is registered as the business owner, seems to have no economic ability to engage in the transaction of the value of supply on the sales tax invoice issued in all BBmers. In addition, the place of business recorded on BBmers, etc. registration certificate, such as officetels or empty container storage office or empty container storage office for residential purpose, there is no evidence to deem that the place of business was equipped with essential facilities, equipment, etc. to carry on the scrap metal business, and the above maximumCC operated the mixed BBmers without any employee at the time of the tax authority’s snow investigation, and even considering these circumstances, it seems that BBmers, etc. were not equipped with human resources or physical facilities to deal in the total value of supply on the sales tax invoice issued by each tax authority.

(B) ABmer, etc., when most of the closed deposits from the Plaintiff, withdrawn the full amount immediately after the deposit was made, and in particular, ParkE divided 00 won immediately after the deposit, and it is difficult to view it as a lawful deposit withdrawal behavior to be done by an enterprise operating a business normally, and rather, it seems that the so-called deposit withdrawal behavior frequently appeared to be common to the so-called data that the company intends to evade the tracking of funds.

(C) In light of the fact that although the tax authorities stated that BBCs actually purchased the waste Dong at the time of the on-site investigation, they did not disclose at all about the matters that could have been easily disclosed if they actually purchased the waste Dong, such as the purchase price or the source of the purchase fund, and in the case of customers known as the purchaser of Park E-E, the fact that BBCs purchased the waste Dong from their purchaser during the taxation period in this case is difficult to recognize, and as long as it is difficult to find that OBs, etc. purchased the waste Dong from their purchaser during the taxation period in this case, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff actually supplied large volume of scrap metal as indicated in the first and second tax invoices in this case, as long as it is difficult to recognize that OBs, etc. purchased the waste Dong, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff actually supplied it as the content of the tax invoice in this case.

(D) While the representatives of BBmers were registered as the largestCC, and Kim Jong-sik, which was in the relationship with the former or ordering the latter, was investigated by the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office on the suspicion of violating the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and stated that "BBmers were established in order to disguise that BBmers purchased and sold non-ferrous metals without tax invoice from the lowest HH, etc., at the time of SBmers' office in the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office, for the reasons for the establishment of BBmers without tax invoice and sell them, and to evade taxes."

(f) It is difficult to view that the leastCC and the GGF were convicted of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the issuance of a large number of tax invoices, including the first or second tax invoices in this case, and the judgment was finalized, and that the judgment was finalized, and that the BBmers, II metal, and JM were actually supplied to the Plaintiff as indicated in the first or second tax invoice in this case.

(O) On July 24, 2012, the Suwon District Court rendered a final judgment on July 24, 2012, on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter “The Punishment of Tax Evaders Act”), which issued the Plaintiff et al. a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to the total value of KRW 000,000, including the first tax invoice, including the instant first tax invoice, to the other party, including the Plaintiff et al.,

OED issued sales tax invoices in the name of metal as if the scrap metal supplied the scrap metal in collusion with the "high iron wholesale Brers" on October 13, 2011, and as if the scrap metal supplied the scrap metal, it was finally determined by the above judgment around two years and six months and six months of imprisonment, since it was a crime of evading the total value of value-added tax, including the second tax invoice of this case issued by the Plaintiff to the person who is supplied with the supply, by delivering the sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 000,000, in total value of value-added tax, including the second tax invoice of this case issued by the Plaintiff to the person who is supplied with the supply, and by issuing the sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 00,000,000,000.

O 김FF도 2011. 12. 23. 대구지방법원에서 '고철 도매 브로커들과 공모하여 위 정DD가 위와 같이 한 것과 같은 방법으로 원고를 공급받는 자로 하여 교부한 이 사건 제2세금계산서를 포함하여 총 공급가액 0000원 상당의 매출세금계산서를 교부하여 부가가치세 합계 000원 상당을 포탈한' 범죄사실로 징역 2년 6윌，집행유예 3년 및 벌금 25억 원을 선고받았고 그 무렵 위 판결이 확정되었다.

(f) The representative Park Jae-gu's Bank account was opened at the branch of six commercial banks in Ansan-si, one hour more at its own place of business and one-time more than 1 hour more at its own place of business in September 1, 2009, after filing a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, on August 27, 2009, K Resources was registered as business operator and closed for four months only, and the total amount of the supply on the sales tax invoice issued was less than KRW 000,000, and Park Young-gu, one hour more at its own place of business after the above registration, and it is difficult to view that the normal business operator actually deposited large amounts of money from each of the above accounts to take action, and that it was difficult to view the Plaintiff as the total amount of the cash supply, including the amount of the cash supply, and that it did not actually carry out the cash supply, as seen earlier.

(G) Park GGGG, the representative of LGGG, was accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, was charged, and its whereabouts were suspended due to the unknown whereabouts, and the LGG’s business was discontinued ex officio on June 30, 2010 after its business was registered as of December 24, 2009. The above LGG appears to have not been operated or engaged in the business related to the scrap metal or non-ferrous, and it was difficult to believe that the LGGG, the sales period of which is six months, was a trade of approximately KRW 000,000 of the total supply price of the sales tax invoice issued including the instant secondary tax invoice, and it is difficult to believe that the LGGG actually supplied the Plaintiff, as indicated in the instant secondary tax invoice, in light of the circumstances examined in the above Section (a).

B. Whether the plaintiff's act of good faith and negligence is recognized

(1) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent, and that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier did not know of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002

(2) In light of the above legal principles, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the name list of each of the tax invoices of this case, and whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the name list of each of the tax invoices of this case, the Plaintiff’s statements 10, 4, 12 through 15, 17 through 19, 21 through 23, 25 through 3, and 37 (including each number), and the testimony by the witness of the first instance trial at the first instance trial is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Plaintiff was aware of the following facts: (i) evidence 2-1, 2, and 5-1 through 11, evidence 11-1, evidence 16-1 through 3, evidence 20-1 through 5, evidence 1 through 24-1, and evidence 20-1 through 4, and evidence 15-1 through 4, respectively, of this case’s tax invoices, and evidence 1 to 4, respectively.

(A) The waste Dong is being traded without a tax invoice in the process of being traded in the process of being traded in a large or medium-scale collection on a large-scale basis due to high-priced waste resources, and it seems that the cash transaction, such as immediately account transfer with the purchaser at the time of the transaction with the purchaser in order to meet the quantity of the seller due to lack of supply compared with the demand, and that the cash transaction has been paid up to cash advance in order to mark the quantity, and that the Plaintiff has been aware of the structure and distribution route of the waste agreement, and the general form or method of the transaction in the relevant industry, and the actual situation and risk of the transaction in the data.

(B) Each transaction between the Plaintiff and BB MM, etc., including the Plaintiff’s processing business operator, began between October 2009 and around March 2010, and began between two months, or the value of supply is not more than a total of KRW 000, and if the Plaintiff’s waste-related business operator is well aware of the general transaction behavior of the waste agreement, it is deemed that there is sufficient reason to suspect whether BB MM is not a disguised business operator.

(C) The Plaintiff seems to have confirmed only whether the Plaintiff, who is well aware of the fact of the transaction in which the supply is insufficient compared to the demand, has actually been negligent in confirming whether the Plaintiff, who is well aware of the fact of the transaction in which the supply is insufficient, due to the business necessity in order to secure the quantity of the waste consent, is a disguised business operator, by trading BB B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B, etc. in a way that it is difficult to identify who is the supplier of the waste. However, it is doubtful that it was not negligent in confirming whether the Plaintiff, who is in fact aware of the fact of the transaction in which the supply is insufficient in excess of the demand, supplied the waste Dong in order to stably secure the quantity of the waste consent.

(D) Some of the instant 1 tax invoices and 2 tax invoices are those prepared and received by the Plaintiff’s processing company, not the supplier of the closeddong, and the Plaintiff’s accounting staff, who measured the total weight of the MM metal, using the supplier’s closed operation, in the manner of stating the value of supply and the amount of tax, and are very exceptional in light of the ordinary method of issuing the tax invoices.

(E) The highestCC or the second metal, the representative of BB MM, has been aware of the transaction partner in MM metal, not the Plaintiff, and the MM metal, at the same time, has been decided on a person who is supplied with the waste operation by allocating the waste volume to each transaction partner in accordance with the volume requested to be processed by the transaction partner including the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not pay any particular attention to the transaction details or the transaction partner before the transaction is made.

(F) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is a party to a transaction with good faith and negligence since it was confirmed as to whether the Plaintiff was registered as a business operator or a copy of the passbook while entering into a transaction with BB mail, etc., but the business registration certificate is delivered by the entrepreneur to the head of the competent district tax office in order to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax and secure taxation data, and it is not recognized that the certificate of business registration is merely a simple certificate of business registration issued by the head of the competent tax office, and that the copy of the passbook is not a party to a transaction with good faith and negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005) and the copy of the passbook is merely a designated account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005)

C. Sub-committee

As seen earlier, the first and second tax invoices of this case are false tax invoices that are different from the facts under Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and so long as the plaintiff cannot be deemed to be negligent due to the plaintiff's failure to know it, the imposition of corporate tax of this case and the imposition of the value-added tax of this case are legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.