Whether a tax invoice with no real transaction related to the wholesale and retail of non-ferrous metals has been received;

The customer is deemed to have received a tax invoice without real transactions on the ground that the customer is deemed to have received a tax invoice due to the fact that he/she is not equipped with physical facilities to engage in the business, such as selling the closed line, and that the payment paid into the closed line is deemed to have been cash immediately deposited or remitted to the account of the relevant customer

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지아지지지 3000

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 33,017,070 for the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2009 and corporate tax of KRW 3,813,980 for the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지지지 3000 지지지지지지지지 3

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 14, 2002, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of wholesale and retail of non-metallic metals, and trade, and was engaged in business activities, and closed on March 22, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the closed ships, etc. from AAA during the 271 taxable period in 2003, and received a tax invoice of KRW 178,893,00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and paid the value-added tax, and was deducted as the input tax amount, KRW 16,263,00.

C. Around May 2008, the director of the Western District Tax Office, upon conducting a tax investigation with AAA around May, 2008, determined that the tax invoice of this case was not a place of business of AA and was not a fact that it actually conducted the business. On August 1, 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of this fact, deeming the tax invoice of this case as a tax invoice different from the fact, issued the instant disposition imposing value-added tax and corporate tax on the purport of the claim

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 11 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff confirmed the AAA’s business registration certificate and actually purchased a closed line and received a tax invoice, so the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, AAAAAAA can be acknowledged as a so-called data merchant who did not use the above land, but did not have physical facilities capable of operating a business, such as selling a closed line. The fact of the recognition seems to have been immediately withdrawn from the payment of a considerable portion of the purchase price of the closed line, or remitted to the account of the relevant transaction party, and the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice in the name of AAAAAAA by facsimile and received the instant tax invoice in the name of the representative of the AAAAAAAA or the place of business directly without direct verification. In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the said scrap metal, etc. from a third party, not AAAAAAAAAAA, since it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff purchased the said scrap metal, etc. from a false third party.

2) In addition, barring special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier, who was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the said name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 20

The fact that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the closed line to the passbook account in the name of AAA after having been issued a tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff from AAA, alone, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was a bona fide and without fault on the nominal name of the instant tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.