It is reasonable to make partial disposition of the tax invoice of this case that is different from the fact that the tax invoice of this case is actually issued.

The original disposition should be revoked on the basis of a final and conclusive criminal judgment of innocence, which is difficult to deny the fact that the actual place of business is in fact in the actual place of business. The rest of the transaction is considered as a nominal person, not an actual place of business, and is therefore the original disposition.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

revocation of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc. in Suwon District Court 2014Guhap5874

AAA, Inc.

00. Head of tax office

October 15, 2015

November 12, 2015

1. As to the Plaintiff on February 7, 2013:

(a)the imposition of KRW 21,130,90 of value-added tax for two years 2010 and KRW 779,540 of corporate tax for the business year 2010;

(b)the portion exceeding KRW 1,594,645,883 of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,649,266,940 in 201;

(c) The portion exceeding 263,66,360 won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 269,848,360 for the business year 201;

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 1,69,266,940 for the Plaintiff on February 7, 2013, the imposition of KRW 71,769,70 for the second year value-added tax for the year 2011, and KRW 269,848,360 for the business year 201, shall be revoked (the Plaintiff indicated in the warden as KRW 7,09,270 for the second year of 2010, but it appears to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff has been engaged in non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail business in OO-dong 106-5, O-si.

B. The Plaintiff, as indicated in the table below, received the tax invoice (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”) from each supplier listed in the “supplier” column in each of the respective taxable periods of value-added tax, 201, and 201 (hereinafter “supplier”) and filed a value-added tax by including the input tax amount equivalent to the value of supply in the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On February 7, 2013, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the value-added tax and corporate tax against the Plaintiff on the grounds that each of the instant tax invoices received by the Plaintiff as the so-called “data,” and that it cannot be included in the input tax amount subject to deduction, as indicated below (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, each of the dispositions of this case must be revoked as it is unlawful.

1) A transaction with BB: BB is a person who actually supplied the Plaintiff with the Dong, and the tax invoice received from BB is not a false tax invoice.

2) In relation to transactions with DD: DD is a person who actually supplied the Plaintiff, such as paying national taxes, including value-added tax, from around May 2005, when it opened the business of DD, to December 201, 201. Even if DD is so called so-called “data,” the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care to confirm that DD was an actual supplier, such as receiving documents, such as photographs, certificates of measurement, and documentary evidence of payment, from the place of business owned by the Plaintiff, and DD was unaware of the fact that DD was a de facto supplier.

3) In relation to transactions with EE: The EE did not confirm the place of business, but fulfilled its duty of care, such as identifying whether the contents of the photographed vehicle and vehicle number, transport engineer, delivery date and time, transaction items, etc., recorded with the EE each transaction with the EE, are consistent, and the ee is not aware of the fact that the E E is a nominal master.

4) A transaction relation with FF: Around February 201, the Plaintiff took a business registration certificate, identification card, and name card, copy of passbook, certified copy of passbook, certified copy of corporate register, and business lease contract, and began a transaction with FF after confirming the FF’s workplace. At each time the transaction was conducted, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care, such as checking whether the contents of the photograph taken of the page where the FF was recorded (transaction counterpart, the place and time of the closure agreement, the place and time of the closure agreement, specific items of the waste agreement, the transport vehicle number, the transport vehicle number, the carrier, etc.), a measurement certificate, and the tax invoice, and did not know the fact that the authentic company was a nominal business operator.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act is different from the fact is that the necessary entries of the tax invoice are made between the parties to the goods or services.

Despite the formal description, it refers to a case in which the goods or services do not coincide with the actual subjects, values, and timing of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Furthermore, the burden of proving that the goods or services fall under a tax invoice different from such facts is the principle that the tax authority bears the burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008).

Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance where the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice either knew of the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the other tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, and that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, the supplier should prove that the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

A) It is insufficient to recognize BB as being only a nominal supplier, not an actual supplier, solely with the descriptions of No. 13-4 of the certificate of No. 13-4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge BB.

Rather, BB’s representative director BB’s 2010 declaration of value-added tax of KRW 38,97,750 to the Plaintiff, 2010, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 30,000, 200,000,000, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

D) The following circumstances, i.e., EEA’s evidence 2 and evidence 13-2, which can be known by adding the overall purport of the pleadings, were commenced on September 18, 2009 and discontinued ex officio on November 22, 2011. During the above period, EE appears to have not paid taxes related to the business, such as value-added tax, etc., the tax authorities sent the notice of attendance to e who is the representative to conduct a tax investigation on EE, but returned to the addressee. At the time of the investigation, the owner of the place of business of EE visited e at the place of business (OO-dong 819-7 at the time of OO-dong) and stated that e did not rent the site at the place of business. In light of the above circumstances, EE appears to have been a nominal owner, not an actual closed metal business entity, who trades non-ferrous metals, such as the Plaintiff’s negligence and negligence.

In relation to the transaction with EE and FF, the Plaintiff asserted that he was unaware of the fact that he was unaware of the name of the tax invoice received from the above purchaser, and that he was not negligent in not knowing, and thus, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate, identification card, and identification card, and the name of the representative of the above purchaser, and then transferred the transaction price to the bank account in the name of the representative of the above purchaser after the issuance of the tax invoice. However, such fact alone was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing that the tax invoice issued by the above purchaser was a false tax invoice when he purchased non-metallic metal from the above purchaser, such as closure, etc., and there was no other evidence to prove otherwise.

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

4) Sub-committee

A) Disposition imposing the value-added tax on 2010: The entire disposition is revoked on the premise that the tax invoice received from BB is false.

B) The value-added tax for the first year 201: If the input tax amount corresponding to the tax invoice received from DD is deducted, and the legitimate tax amount is calculated by deducting the input tax amount corresponding to the tax invoice received from DD, it shall be deemed as KRW 1,594,645,83 as shown in the following table, and the exceeding amount shall be revoked.

C) The imposition of value-added tax for the second period in 201 is lawful.

D) Disposition of imposing corporate tax (additional tax) for the business year 2010: (a) the disposition of imposing corporate tax (additional tax) for the business year 2011 is revoked on the same ground as the above (A). The conclusion is that the portion exceeding the above amount should be revoked, on the ground that: (b) the tax amount is calculated by calculating the legitimate amount, 263,66,360 won (=(13,492,418,000 won - 309,100), 2%).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.