early 2013Gu2920

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff engaging in the scrap metal business is a bona fide trading party.

Since it seems insufficient to confirm whether the trading partner is a normal business operator, it is difficult to deem that the trading partner is a bona fide trading partner.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Tax Invoice paid under Article 17

2013Guhap3162 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

Head of the Daegu Tax Office

December 3, 2014

January 21, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Ministry of Strategy and Finance of 19,804,090 won for the first half of 2011 against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2012

The administrative disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 3, 2009, the Plaintiff opened a business with the trade name of "BB" from Yongsan-gu, Daegu-dong 213-4, Daegu-dong, and was issued ten copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 403,639,600 (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice in this case") in total from DDD Korea (hereinafter referred to as "DD") on January 10 through May 9, 201, as shown in the details of receipt of purchase tax invoices in attached Form 1.

B. On August 16, 2012 to October 4, 2012, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff’s entry of the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 99,804,090 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on December 3, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request for adjudication on June 19, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the request on September 3, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 14, 15, Eul No. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without real transaction and deducted the relevant input tax amount; (b) the Plaintiff traded the instant tax invoice with DD andCC (hereinafter referred to as “instant purchaser”); and (c) received the instant tax invoice. The Plaintiff’s main sales office is EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EE”); and (d) the Plaintiff supplied KRW 1,428,01,871 out of the total sales amount of KRW 1,758,414,871, which was KRW 1,428,01,871, which was total sales amount of KRW 1,428,01,871, which was total sales amount of KRW 605,313,600, if the instant tax invoice is all different from the fact, the Defendant must prove where the Plaintiff purchased the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the goods specified in the instant tax invoice by the instant purchaser, supplied them to EE, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business entity due to the characteristics of the distribution structure and transaction of the waste resources, and there is no circumstance that the Plaintiff confirmed the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, purchase tax invoice, measurement certificate, financial account, name tag, etc. from the instant purchaser, and that the unit price of the waste resources supplied by the Plaintiff is considerably low compared to the market price, the Plaintiff constitutes a party with good faith and without fault in the process of receiving the instant tax invoice.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) According to Articles 16(1)1 and 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013), an input tax amount shall not be deducted or refundable unless there are special circumstances where a person who is provided with a tax invoice falls under a case where a supplier and a supplier are different from the actual supplier under a tax invoice, and a person who is provided with a tax invoice does not know of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that he/she was not negligent. In such cases, the supplier shall be deemed as a person who actually engaged in a transaction of supplying goods or services to a person who is not a person who forms a nominal legal relationship with the supplier, but a person who actually engaged in a transaction of supplying goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Du538, Aug. 20, 2014; 96Da483084, Mar. 28, 1997).

(B) a tax invoice received from D;

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchase place, such as closing of a tax invoice received from DD is a third party, not DD, and EE constitutes a so-called “data” that issues only a tax invoice to the Plaintiff under its own name. Therefore, the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from DD constitutes a tax invoice that differs from the fact that the supplier’s entries are different from the fact, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

① The OO of the representative of DD stated that there was no business experience in non-ferrous-related business as a woman with multiple and simple points. At the time of the investigation into DDR into DD, OO was the representative of DD after receiving shares from K in lieu of recovering the money lent to K by the former representative, and that it has been operating DD with the aid of K's wife. In light of these business experience, the process of becoming the representative, etc., it is difficult to view that OO was merely the representative in its name and operated DD with its own ability.

② DD opened a business on August 19, 2008, and there was no sales from the first to the first period of 2009 from 2009 to 2010. However, during the second period of 2010, sales from the second period of 2010 increased to KRW 5.8 billion per se, and even thereafter, there was a large amount of KRW 5.6 billion for the first period of 201 and KRW 5.3 billion for the second period of 2011.

③ As a result of the investigation by the director of the tax office of the port of entry, five out of the seven purchase places listed on the purchase tax invoice received in 2011 were confirmed as the material closed without paying the value-added tax, after issuing a large amount of purchase tax invoice. In particular, in the case of the JJ, most of the purchase amount of D-1 year 201, the representative was accused of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance, etc. of False Tax Invoice), and violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Evidence No. 35).

④ DD immediately transferred most of the sales price to the company’s account on the day it was deposited into the company’s account by the Plaintiff, etc. (i.e., a partial payment and transfer within several minutes). This is very exceptional that it is difficult to view it in the form of fund management ordinarily performed by a normal business entity.

⑤ Accordingly, the L andO of DD does not purchase and sell waste cars, etc. under its own responsibility, but constitute so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'the so-called 'exploiting enterprise' in charge of dividing the value-added tax evasion amount not paid by the so-called 'exploiting enterprise' by simply registering its business and

C) A tax invoice received from the KCCC

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the actual purchaser of a closed-end Dong, etc. received from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., is a third party other than the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (State Co., Ltd.) and that the Co., Ltd. issued a tax invoice only to the Plaintiff under its own name. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier’s entry constitutes a tax invoice, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation is not reasonable.

(1) As a result of the tax audit conducted by the director of the Nam Daegu Tax Office, M, a representative of the Co-CCC's business registration certificate, is limited to the so-called "the so-called "bain president," which only borrowed the name, and the actual operator was found Y.

② On November 2, 2010, the Co., Ltd. issued a high-amount sales tax invoice in the short term, including approximately KRW 1.5 billion, approximately KRW 9.1 billion, KRW 9.1 billion, and KRW 1.4 billion, in the second period in 2011, and immediately closed on December 19, 201, when approximately one year has elapsed since the commencement of the business.

③ Around 2011, “O industry” in the vicinity of the Daegu-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., which is the location of the business establishment of the Co., Ltd., was conducted in the name of “YO industry”. Around 2011, Y, a large vehicle, has not entered the form of a large vehicle in which it carries old interest and gets loaded in the goods or is in the inventory of the goods, and there is no way to classify it in the last place of business, and there is no way to store old interest at the last place of business, and on the other hand, there is no 3 and four persons who have suffered old saws, other than working clothes in containers, and there is no permanent domicile.

④ ㈜(주)CCC의 매입처 관련자들은 모두 허위세금계산서교부 등 혐의로 고발되었는데, ㉠ RR금속의 실제 운영자 W은 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(허위세금계산서교부등)죄로 징역 6년 및 벌금710억 원을 선고받고 그 판결이 확정되었으며(부산고등법원 2014노290호, 상고취하로 확정됨), ㉡ Q메탈의 실제 운영자인 G은 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)죄로 징역 4년 및 벌금 60억 원, 명의상 대표자인 H은 같은 죄로 징역 3년에 집행유예 5년 및 벌금 60억 원을 선고받고 그 판결이 확정되었으며(대구지방법원 서부지원 2011고합264호, 대구고등법원 2012노161호), ㉢ U자원의 실제 운영자 P은 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세)죄로 징역 3년 및 벌금 36억 원을 선고받고 그 판결이 확정되었으며(대구지방법원 서부지원 2012고합169호, 대구고등법원 2012노402호, 대법원 2012도14702호), ㉣ T금속 관련자 J 및 V금속 관련자 W에 대하여는 기소중지처분이 내려졌다.

⑤ On the day when the Plaintiff et al. received a high-amount sales amount from the sales office to the corporate account, the Plaintiff et al. remitted most of the sales amount to O resources, OMM,OO, etc. This is very exceptional that it is difficult to view it in the form of fund management ordinarily conducted by a normal business operator.

6) On the other hand, the Plaintiff was accused of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoices) that the Plaintiff and other sales offices were issued with the processed tax invoices without actual transactions from G metal, K resources, etc., and received a non-prosecution disposition on July 12, 2012 (Article 13051 of the Seo-gu District Public Prosecutor’s Office, 2012) (Article 13051 of the Act). However, the above non-prosecution disposition is related to the fact that the Plaintiff received and issued the processed tax invoices without actual transactions. However, the Defendant issued the tax invoices issued by the KCC, on the ground that the actual supplier of the tax invoices issued by the KCC did not have direct relations with the KCC, and that the instant disposition is not subject to the prosecution’s non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that it is not subject to the prosecution’s non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that it is not subject to the prosecution’s non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that it is not subject to criminal charges of 9815 weeks.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

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).

Therefore, according to the statements and images as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal name in the issuance of the tax invoice of this case by the purchaser of this case, and the Plaintiff did not know of the nominal name in the absence of negligence, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff received the business registration certificate and identification card of this case and the name of its representative from the purchaser of this case, and then remitted the transaction price to the bank account of the purchaser of this case after the issuance of the tax invoice. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the tax invoice of this case issued by the purchaser of this case was a false tax invoice, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to investigate, even though the other party to the transaction was aware that the actual purchaser of the transaction was not the purchaser of the instant case, or there was a doubt as to whether the actual counterparty of the said transaction was the purchaser of the instant case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① The closed-dong is a high-priced waste resources collected once again through a small and medium-scale collection, and there are many cases of transactions without receipt of tax invoices in the course of transactions for a large scale collection, and it seems that the cash transaction, such as immediately account transfer, is generally conducted in order to meet the quantity of the sales office due to a lack of supply compared to demand, and the advance payment is also made in order to arrange the volume.

② As the Plaintiff’s husband, ZZ in charge of external business of CCC has been engaged in the collection and sale of the waste consent from around 1996, and it seems that it was well aware of the structure and distribution route of the waste consent, the general form or method of transaction in the pertinent industry, and the actual condition and risk of transaction in data.

③ Nevertheless, at the time of the commencement of the transaction with the Co., Ltd., the Z did not directly visit the place of business of the Co., Ltd. at the time of the commencement of the transaction with the Co., Ltd., and at the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation, the Z became aware of the person who is a RR director of the Co., Ltd. at the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation and became aware of the business registration certificate, name, and copy of passbook.

④ In addition, the Z did not visit the place of business in the same way as at the time when the transaction with the DD was commenced, and the Z made a single transaction through the OO that he became aware of at the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation, and the copy of the business registration certificate and the copy of the passbook were delivered by facsimile and talked about the transaction volume only by telephone.

⑤ In particular, in the case of the KCC, the business registration was made at least two months prior to the first transaction with the Plaintiff (the opening date on the business registration certificate is November 2, 2010), and if this situation is concerned, the Plaintiff seems to have to have to have been in need of a thorough investigation as to whether the (State)CCC is a actual supplier.

6) Nevertheless, the Plaintiff was merely subject to formal verification procedures, such as receiving only a copy of the business registration certificate and a copy of the passbook at the time of the first transaction, and did not visit the place of business in person to take sufficient measures for verification as to whether the actual supplier equipped with basic facilities, such as guidance, field, transportation vehicles, etc., and did not properly verify the course of movement of the closed consent.

7) The business registration certificate that the Plaintiff confirmed at the time of commencement of the transaction with the purchaser of this case is delivered to the head of the competent tax office by requiring the business entity to apply for registration to the head of competent tax office in order to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax, etc. and secure taxation data. It is not recognized that the mere certificate of business registration is merely a certificate proving the business fact and that the copy of the passbook satisfies the qualification or requirements for operating the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Since the copy of the passbook was designated as the account to be deposited, in light of the reality of the transaction with the frequent closed consent, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.