beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s value-added tax for the first period of November 1, 2011 against a rehabilitation debtor A Co., Ltd. on November 1, 201, 3,573,55.
Reasons
Details of the disposition
A. From July 4, 2006, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) made a decision on January 17, 2012 on commencement of rehabilitation procedures and appointment of a manager for representative director B as Daejeon District Court 201 Ma41, which had been engaged in the business of manufacturing non-metallic metals in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Daejeon District Court on January 17, 201, and registered as a custodian on January 26, 2012.
B. A received a tax invoice (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”) corresponding to the details of each of the purchase in purchasing each of the following table (hereinafter “each of the instant transaction parties”) while purchasing waste Dong, etc. from each of the following table during the 1st VAT taxable period in 2011, and deducted the input tax amount according to the said tax invoices from the output tax amount, and filed a return on the value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period with the Defendant.
Serial 1 Co., Ltd. 3,328,337,00 won 332,83,700 won 2 E (F) 4,153,09,300 won 22,435,500 won 3 G companies (H) 224,35,000 won 22,435,50 won 4,500 won 3,328,692,692,869,200 won 332,869,200 won 5 K companies (L) 8,62,65,000 won 86,265,50 won 1,371,05,250,250 won 1,377,137,195,000 won 3 G companies (H), 408,164,205,208 won 70,5306,4167
C. On March 6, 2012, the Defendant denied the deduction of the pertinent input tax amount on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices received by A from each of the instant transaction parties falls under a disguised entrepreneur (so-called “materials Trade”) who issued false tax invoices without real transactions, and revised the increase in the amount of KRW 3,315,458,780 (including additional tax) in 201, on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices received by A from each of the said transaction parties was tax invoices different from the facts.
(hereinafter “Disposition as of March 6, 2012.” Moreover, with respect to A on November 1, 2012, the Defendant constitutes a disguised business operator who issued a false tax invoice without real transactions as well as a disguised business operator who issued false tax invoices.