beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the first term of 2008 against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2012 was KRW 164,724,200, and the second term portion of 2008.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 16, 2007, the Plaintiff, a company engaged in the wholesale business of steel products, received 57 copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 7,218,281,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in total of supply values from Company B (hereinafter “B”) that is the purchaser of scrap metal during the period from May 16, 2008 to April 201, and filed a value-added tax return.
B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on B in 2012 on the instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from B as the processing tax invoice and notified the Defendant of the taxation data. After conducting a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice that the Plaintiff should receive from B, which is the actual purchaser of scrap metal, from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C, etc.”) (hereinafter “D”), a related company of C, etc. (hereinafter “C, etc.”) and C, which is the actual purchaser of scrap metal, and received through C, etc. (hereinafter “C, etc.”), and then, deducted the input tax invoice from the deduction of the input tax amount as a disguised tax invoice on August 21, 2012.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The notified amount of value-added tax (won) due on the date of notice for the payment on the date of notice for the term of the tax item (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on August 27, 2012 on September 15, 2012, 164, 724, 2008, 200 176, 146, 400 2, 2009 2, 258, 782, 782, 700 on August 27, 2012, 2009, 176, 263, 134, 70, 70 263, 263, 163,020, 810, 700, 200, 160, 163,90, 1200, 1291, 294, 29386, 206
D. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 1, 2013, and was decided by the Tax Tribunal on June 27, 2013.
E. The Defendant conducted a reinspection as to whether the instant tax invoice was a disguised tax invoice, but the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from B constitutes a disguised tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition is reasonable.