early 2010 Heavy341 ( December 02, 2010)

No person shall be deemed to have acted in good faith or without fault due to the fact that he/she has received a statement of such telephone and facsimile from the purchaser.

In light of the fact that the trade name of the purchaser is the same as that of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was registered as a business operator immediately before the transaction with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff suspended the transaction after introducing the new purchaser, and all the Plaintiff’s orders received from the purchaser are indicated with the same telephone number and facsimile number, etc., the Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault engaged in the waste resources industry, the possibility of disguised and fictitious transaction, cannot be recognized.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax

XX

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

October 27, 2011

November 24, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 155,018,940 for the first term portion of 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 7, 2010 and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 140,128,790 for the second term portion of 2009 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 20, 2007, the Plaintiff engaged in wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron and official disease, with the trade name of 00, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City from 000, Nam-dong, Incheon.

B. The Plaintiff: (a) during the tax period of January 2009 and February 2, 2009 the value-added tax of KRW 122,188,605 in total; (b) a tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,016,50 in total of the value-added tax for BB operated by HJ; (c) a tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 680,160,085 in total of the value-added tax for PJ resources operated by HJ (which are the same as the above HJ resources; and (b) a business operator whose place of business is different from the above HJ resources; and (c) a tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,03,950 in total of the value-added tax for HJ resources operated by HB; and (d) the Plaintiff received the tax invoice in the aggregate of the value-added tax for each business entity; and (e) the Plaintiff received the tax invoice in the aggregate of the value-added tax for HJ resources and the supply price for each business entity;

C. On July 20, 2010, the Defendant decided not to deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount on the ground that the instant tax invoice was written differently from the fact, etc., and imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax amount of KRW 155,018,940 on the first term portion in 2009, and KRW 185,307,830 on the second term portion in 2009 (of these, the value-added tax amount of KRW 271,209 includes the part on which the Plaintiff imposed value of KRW 273,995,00 during that period on the omitted sales. As seen below, the Plaintiff disputing the portion on which the input tax amount was not deducted from the fact. The Plaintiff’s imposition disposition of value-added tax on the first term portion in 2009 related to the instant tax invoice and the imposition disposition of value-added tax on the second term portion in 209 and the imposition disposition on the second term portion in 2009.

D. On October 7, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 1, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul Evidence No. 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is not a tax invoice different from the facts, since the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the interest of the instant transaction party and was normally traded by remitting the purchase price, and even if the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff was engaged in the instant transaction after confirming the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, the name of the representative, and identification card from the instant transaction party, and was provided with the interest of the instant transaction party and transferred the price to the passbook under the name of the representative of the instant transaction party, and all measures were taken to confirm whether the instant transaction party actually supplied the interest of the instant transaction party, and thus, the instant disposition made on a different premise

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

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

The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

In full view of the following facts, the evidence Nos. 3, 3-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 3-4, witness EE, PEB, and Maximum DD’s testimony, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from the transaction partner of the instant case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the actual supplier of the transaction was differently prepared by a disguised transaction without a real transaction. Furthermore, it is insufficient to reverse the fact that the Plaintiff’s testimony of each of the items No. 8, 11-1 through 4, 5, 11-1 through 5, 12-1 through 4, 12-4, and 12-1 through 4 is contrary to such fact finding.

① On June 17, 2008, HJ resource 1 registered the business at the place of business, the business owner of HJ resource 00-3, active early 00-3, the place of business at the place of business at the above place of business. However, the owner of the above place of business did not lease the scrap metal to HJ resource 1, the representative of HJ resource 1. On September 16, 2009, the head of the Suwon District Tax Office voluntarily closed HJ resource 1 on the ground that there is no place of business at the HJ resource 1.

Before the HJ resource 1 is operated, there is no room for operating the scrap metal-related entity, and there is no particular property. The HJ resource 1 was opened and the sales amounting to KRW 2.6 billion was reported for about one year until the date of its ex officio closure. However, the HJ resource 1 was not paid KRW 183,00,000,000 for the reported portion.

As a result of the investigation into HJ resource 1 by the head of the Suwon Tax Office, HJ resource 1 reported that he purchased 1,57,443,000 won in the taxable period of 208 and 1,557,43,000 won in the value-added tax period of 1,509. However, it was revealed that the whole amount was received without real transaction. After the transaction price was deposited at the seller, it was immediately divided into KRW 19,000 in the unit of HaF (HJ resource 1’s employee), Park G (spouse’s spouse), EG (spouse’s employee), EH (spouse’s spouse, the representative of HJ resource 1), and H HH (spouse’s spouse, the representative of HJ resource 1), and was deposited in cash.

② On May 13, 2009, the BB company registered its business with 000-73 p.m. as its place of business. However, the location of the said place of business did not have an open space where scrap metal is kept and is used as the office of licensed real estate agents.On November 30, 2009, the head of the Suwon District Tax Office voluntarily closed the BB company on the ground that the BB company’s place of business does not exist.

BB, the representative of the BB company, had not operated the scrap metal-related company before the operation of the BB company, and had no particular property. BB opened the B company and reported sales amounting to KRW 4.5 billion for about six months until the date of its ex officio closure. However, HB did not pay KRW 269,000,000,000, such as value-added tax on the reported portion.

As a result of the investigation into BB companies by the head of Suwon Tax Office, BB reported that it purchased 2,032,634,000 won in the taxable period of the value-added tax in January 2009. However, it was revealed that the entire amount of the transaction was received without real transaction. After the transaction amount was deposited at the sales office, it was immediately divided into KRW 19,00,000,000 in the unit of the EF (HJ 1’s employee), Park GG (spouse’s employee), E (E) and UCC (representative’s representative), and then deposited in cash after being transferred to a passbook in the name of the head of the Tong.

③ On March 12, 2009, CC Co., Ltd. registered its business with the place of business of 000-4, the place of business, but the place of business at the above place of business is used as a licensed real estate agent office without any studio in which scrap iron is kept.The head of the Suwon District Tax Office closed its business ex officio on October 30, 2009 on the ground that there is no CC Co., Ltd.’s place of business.

The UCC, the representative of theCC company, has not been operating a high iron-related business prior to the operation of theCC company, and there is no particular property. It has been sentenced to sales amounting to KRW 5.9 billion for about seven months until it opens a business and closes its official business.

As a result of the investigation conducted by the head of Suwon Tax Office with respect to theCC company, on January 2009, it reported thatCC company purchased 4,383,309,000 won in the taxable period of the value-added tax. However, it was revealed that the whole amount of the purchase tax was received without real transaction. After the transaction amount was deposited at the seller, it was immediately divided into KRW 19,000,000 in the unit of the EF (HJ resource 1’s employee), Park GG (spouse’s employee), E (E), and Cho H (spouse’s spouse, the representative of HJ resource 1’s employee), and then deposited in cash after being transferred to the passbook in the name of the head of Tong.

④ On August 1, 2008, HJ-2: (a) on August 1, 2008, HJ-2 was registered as a business place; (b) on the said business place, there was no open space where scrap metal is kept. On May 12, 2009, the head of the Suwon District Tax Office discontinued HJ-2 ex officio on the ground that the place of business under HJ-2 was not located.

MaximumD, the representative of HJ-2, did not operate a scrap metal-related business entity prior to the operation of HJ-2, and did not have any particular property. He opened HJ-2 and reported sales of approximately KRW 3.4 billion for about nine months until the date of closure of his official business. However, MaximumD did not pay KRW 380,68,000, including value-added tax, for the reported portion.

As a result of the investigation into HJ-2 by the head of Suwon Tax Office, HJ-2 reported that he purchased 758,021,000 won in the taxable period of the value-added tax for the first period of January 2008 and the first taxable period of the value-added tax for the first year of January 2009. However, it was revealed that the whole amount of the purchase tax invoice was issued without real transaction. After the payment was made at the seller, it was immediately divided into KRW 19,000 in the unit of the FF (HJ-1’s employees), GG (spouse’s spouse), E (RepresentationF’s representative), UCC (the spouse of HJ-1), and HH (the spouse of YA), and was withdrawn from cash after being transferred to the passbook in the name of the head of the Tong.

⑤ As such, the transaction partner of the instant case does not have basic facilities such as fraternity, field yard, transportation vehicle, etc. for the scrap metal wholesale business, and cannot be deemed to have actually supplied his own interest to the Plaintiff under the circumstances where there was no Guide. The transaction partner of the instant case started business at a similar time, a similar place and closed business without paying taxes for the short term after the opening of the instant tax invoice was generated over the short term by issuing the instant tax invoice. The representative of the transaction partner of the instant case was paid the sales amount in installments on the same method as the one known to each other, and the same person’s name was the same as the other, and the sales amount was paid in 19 million won. Thus, the transaction partner of the instant case shall be deemed to be a third party, not the transaction partner of the instant case.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide or without fault or not

Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax deduction shall not be permitted in cases where a necessary entry of a tax invoice is entered differently from the fact, and the main purpose of this provision is to train taxation data and secure tax revenues by securing tax revenues under the former tax credit method. Therefore, in cases where a person who receives a tax invoice and a supplier of a tax invoice have been issued other tax invoices, such input tax amount shall not be deducted or refundable unless there are special circumstances where he/she was unaware of the fact that the actual supplier was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, and that the person who received the tax was not negligent in not knowing the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of, and was unaware of, the name of the tax invoice of this case, and whether there was no negligence on the part of, the Plaintiff’s failure to know the name of the tax invoice of this case, the Plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate and identity card and the name of the representative from the transaction party of this case, and the amount corresponding thereto was transferred to the passbook under the name of the representative of the transaction party of this case after the issuance of the tax invoice of this case by the transaction party of this case. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case, and there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and there was no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff was at fault even if he knew or was unaware of the fact that the transaction partner was not a person who supplied old interest under the tax invoice of this case.

① The Plaintiff’s total purchase amount was KRW 2,027,468,540 during the taxable period of the Plaintiff’s 1st and the 2nd taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, and among them, the purchase amount was KRW 95% of the total purchase amount was KRW 1,934,938,000 (Evidence 14-2).

② The Plaintiff did not visit the place of business in order to verify whether the instant transaction partner is equipped with basic facilities, such as a valley, open site, and transport vehicle, etc. for scrap metal wholesale business, and it did not confirm the mobile channel of the transaction between the Plaintiff and the instant transaction partner, except for the Plaintiff’s issuance of a copy of the business registration certificate and identification card and the name of its representative (see subparagraph 9-4 and subparagraph 14-3, the Plaintiff appears to have received a copy of his/her identification card from the CC company after the completion of the transaction No. 6 from the transaction No. 9).

③ HaJ-1’s HaJ-2 introduced to the Plaintiff the HaJ-2 LJ-2 LJ-2 and CC’s UCC, and the UCC’s UCC introduced the HaB from the HaB-2. However, the trade name of the HaB-2 and HaJ-2 is the same as the HaB-3, HJ-1 and HaJ-2, and the HaJ-2, immediately after the introduction of HaD and UCC, HJ-2 ceased the transaction with the Plaintiff. HJ-2 was suspended on May 12, 2009. Upon the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate issued to the BB-2 and CC-2, the BB-2 and CC-2 appears to have been registered immediately before the first transaction with the Plaintiff (Evidence evidence No. 9-2 and 10-1), and the Plaintiff’s phone number and No. 3 of the HaB-2 and the Plaintiff’s 10-2, respectively.

(3) Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and it is insufficient to recognize the circumstances that the Plaintiff is bona fide and negligent in believing that the said tax invoice was properly received. As such, the instant disposition by the Defendant is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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