early 2014 Heavy2787 ( November 20, 2014)

Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a trade party in good faith

The plaintiff was well aware of the distribution channel of the complicated steel industry, and was engaged in various transactions with the purchasing agency several times, and did not keep the ledger of receipts and disbursements of goods, etc., and it was difficult to regard the plaintiff as a bona fide trading partner who has fulfilled his duty of care as a good manager in light of on-site verification of the purchasing agency.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Nu63083 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

% % Total Steel Corporation

port of origin

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap61123 Decided September 24, 2015

May 25, 2016

June 22, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The sum of value-added taxes imposed on the Plaintiff on November 11, 2013 by the Defendant is added.

The imposition of KRW 156,719,200 and the imposition of KRW 00,00,000 each shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance 5 through 9), except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of second instance 5 through 9), it refers to the summary used in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (as the judgment of the court of first instance hereinafter referred to as "the meaning of the abbreviation used in this part").

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was issued a business registration certificate, name card, and passbook at the time of transaction with the purchaser of this case.

The company and representative confirmed that each of the tax invoices of this case was issued, and the purchase amount is limited to 4% in comparison with the total purchase amount of the plaintiff during the pertinent period, and the tax invoice is issued after the plaintiff received the actual supply of the goods, and the price of the goods is the account of the relevant company.

In connection with the instant transaction with the purchaser, the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the prosecution that he was suspected of having been indicted. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, took sufficient measures to confirm whether the instant purchaser actually supplies the steel, etc., thereby constituting a party to the transaction with good faith.

B. Relevant statutes

The court's explanation about this part is the same as the 8th written judgment of the court of first instance.

Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be quoted as it is.

C. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice that is different from the supplier on a tax invoice

Unless there is any special circumstance that there was no negligence on the part of the person who was unaware of the fact that the person who was supplied with the input tax amount was unaware of the fact that the person was unaware of the fact that the person was unaware of the fact that the person was unaware of the name, the person who claimed the input tax amount should prove the fact that the person was not negligent on the part of the person who was supplied with the said name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 15, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 8 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff's objection is examined.

사건 각 세금계산서 상 철근 등의 실제 매입처는 이 사건 매입처들이 아닌 ㅁㅁㅁ이고, 이 사건 매입처들은 단지 자신 명의로 원고에게 세금계산서만을 발급해준 위장거래자인 사실이 인정된다.

In the event that the Plaintiff received each of the tax invoices of this case from the purchaser of this case, the name of the Plaintiff

장 사실을 알지 못하였고 알지 못한 데 과실이 없는지에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제4 내지11호증(가지번호 있는 경우 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고가 이사건 매입처들과 거래하기 전 일부의 사업자등록증과 대표자 명함을 교부받았고, 이사건 매입처들의 대표자 명의로 된 계좌로 거래대금을 입금한 사실, 원고 및 원고의 대표자 @@@가 허위세금계산서 36매를 교부받은 혐의사실에 관하여 검찰로부터 혐의없음의 불기소처분을 받은 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 위 인정사실만으로는 원고가 이사건 매입처들로부터 철근 등을 매입하면서 위 업체들이 발행한 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 세금계산서라는 사실을 알지 못하였고 알지 못한 데에 과실이 없음을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Rather, the whole purport of the pleading is as follows: evidence mentioned above and evidence stated in Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 8

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to investigate, even though it was aware that the actual counterparty of the transaction was not the purchaser of the instant case, or it was doubtful as to whether the actual counterparty of the transaction was the purchaser of the instant case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff constitutes a party to a trade without fault is without merit.

① The Plaintiff first communicates the Plaintiff by telephone to start the transaction.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion was asserted that, even if based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, it was not known or known prior to the commencement of the transaction. The Plaintiff received only a business registration certificate of some of the purchasing agencies prior to the transaction, and did not confirm whether the representative of the issued business registration certificate and the actual representative were the same.

② 원고가 이 법원에 **철강,&&철강, %%스틸, ##철강의 사업자등록증을

** The certificate of business registration for steel was submitted on December 13, 201, after the date of transaction with the Plaintiff.

As issued and the registration certificate for R& Steel was not submitted, the plaintiff* Steel

및 &&철강의 사업자등록증은 거래 전 확인하지 아니한 것으로 보인다. 원고가 제1심 법원에 제출한 명함의 경우 대표자의 것은&&철강(이동열) 및 ##철강(최병무)이고, 수사기관에 제출한 대표자 명함은 &&철강(노경화)일 뿐이며, **철강의 경우 이사 김효일의 명함을 제출하였을 뿐이므로, %%스틸과 **철강은 대표자의 명함조차 받지 아니한 것으로 보인다.

③ The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s purchaser for the sale of the steel bars, etc.

The Plaintiff did not visit the place of business in order to verify whether the Plaintiff is equipped with basic facilities, and did not take any measure to verify where the name of the purchaser of the instant case, the transportation route of the iron bars supplied, and the actual place of business, etc. The Plaintiff asserted that it is impossible to directly confirm the place of business of the purchaser of the instant case due to the small scale of the business and lack of human resources, but the duty of care to confirm whether the trader is a disguised business operator cannot be reduced solely on the ground that the scale of the business is small.

④ The Plaintiff’s 64 sheets 64 sheets from the instant purchasing agencies are marked with product specifications.

The form is the same, and there is no or insufficient description of the transport vehicle.

⑤ 원고의 대표자 @@@는 세무조사 당시 철근 등이 납품되면 세금계산서 사본을

팩스로 받아 확인하거나 운반자가 가져온 세금계산서 원본을 확인한 후 그 업체에 매입대금을 송금하였다고 진술하였는데, 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 공급받는 자와 공급 내역란에 기재된 필체가 동일하여(ㅁㅁㅁ의 필적으로 보인다) 위 매입처들이 실제 공급자인지 의심할 만한 정황이 있었다. 특히 원고는 이 사건 매입처들의 실제 사업자인 ㅁㅁㅁ와 2009년 2기부터 2012년 1기까지 도합 13억 원이 넘는 거래를 한 바 있다.

④ The Plaintiff engaged in transactions close to 900 million won in relation to each of the instant tax invoices.

Even if the receipt and payment of goods was not made, it was not made.

(7) In connection with steel transactions, a data or a name-based business operator exists, and a normal route shall exist.

거치지 않은 철근이유통되고 있는 것이 현실인바, 원고의 대표자 @@@는 원고를 포함하여 철강도소매업체를 10년 가까이 운영한 경력이 있으므로 위와 같은 사정을 알 수 있었을 것으로 보인다.

⑧ 비록 원고 및 원고의 대표자 @@@가 검찰로부터 '이 사건 각 세금계산서가

허위로 작성된 것임을 알고도 수취하였다는 증거가 부족하다'는 이유로 불기소처분을 받기는 하였으나, 이는 원고 및 @@@가 이 사건 각 세금계산서의 허위 여부에 관하여 알지 못하였다는 취지일 뿐이므로, 이를 근거로 원고에게 이 사건 각 세금계산서의 명의위장사실을 알지 못한 데 과실이 없다고 단정할 수 없다.

① Business registration certificate that the Plaintiff verified with the purchaser of this case prior to commencing transaction with the purchaser of this case

The Value-Added Tax Act provides a business operator with an application for registration to the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business in order to identify taxpayers of value-added tax, etc. and secure taxation data, and the head of competent tax office does not recognize that the certificate proving the registration of a simple business fact is merely a certificate and that he/she satisfies the qualification or requirement to operate his/her business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Since the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate, it is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge