Revocation of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

It is difficult to deem that there was a circumstance to suspect that the scrap metal transaction under the tax invoice of this case was a "defensive transaction", and that there was a circumstance to suspect that the AA resource, which is a supplier under the tax invoice, is a mere nominal supplier.

Article 17 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2014 Gohap57974. Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

( Note)* Mattere

Head of the tax office

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 10,754,170 on February 10, 2014 and value-added tax of KRW 2,902,750 on March 1, 2014 on March 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A. BBB, the father of the Plaintiff, was registered as a business operator around May 1990 **MMM, etc., and on January 10, 2007, the Plaintiff established ** Mmeri (hereinafter referred to as *** Mmeri) for the above business, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director around December 2007.

B.** A.M. purchase of scrap metal necessary for the manufacture of A.I.D. from an OO whose trade name is called “A.” (hereinafter “A.”) and received from A.A. resource the purchase price of KRW 19,673,500 on February 6, 2012, the purchase price of KRW 15,058,000 on April 3, 2012, the purchase price of KRW 15,686,50 on May 4, 2012, the purchase price of KRW 15,686,50 on May 1, 201, the purchase price of KRW 10,783,30 on June 11, 2012, the purchase price of KRW 17,05,00 on July 3, 201, the total amount of KRW 78,256,300 on the basis of the purchase price of KRW 17,00 on July 3, 2012.

C. However, the FF regional tax office conducted a DD tax investigation into AA resource, and conducted the DD tax investigation, and found that the OO, a registered business operator, lent its name to the DDS rap Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DDS rap”), and found that the DD rap issued a tax invoice for the output tax amount of KRW 4.6 billion in the name of AA resource, including the above transactions with the Amer ice **.

D. As a result of the above tax investigation, the Defendant issued the instant tax invoice by OO: (a) on February 10, 2014, stated that the actual supplier’s name was entered in the OO, and thus, the actual supplier’s name was different from the fact, and thus, (b) on the ground that it cannot be entitled to deduct the output tax amount based on the relevant input tax amount, *** (i) on the 120,095 won of 2012, and (iii) on the 1,705,491 won of the value-added tax belonging to the 2012, including the penalty tax, added the amount of value-added tax belonging to the 1,754,170 won, and (iv) on March 2, 2014, notified the Plaintiff of the payment of the value-added tax amount of KRW 2,902,750 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On the other hand, ** Ameri has been under suspension of rehabilitation proceedings on May 7, 2015 by Suwon District Court 2015 Mahap10012, and *** a plaintiff who had a representative director of Sumeri became a custodian.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, each entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 5, and 11 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

1)** The instant tax invoice is not false, since the Mex actually purchased scrap metal from AA resources and paid the price.

2) Even if the tax invoice issued by AA resource is different from the fact, ****** Mustra was unaware of the disguised name of Dustraps as AA resource, and there was no negligence on the part of failing to know that it was the disguised name, and the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice should be deducted from the output tax amount.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount if the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. It means that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, or transaction subject to taxation is only nominal, and there is another person to whom they actually belong, the person to whom the tax invoice belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the other person to whom the necessary entries of the tax invoice are to be entered shall be applied, regardless of the formal descriptions of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, the person to whom the tax invoice was actually supplied, and thus, the person to whom the tax invoice was supplied shall be acknowledged as having been registered as having been registered as a business operator of the above rap 2, 4, and 5, 000.

2)* Whether Melaice is bona fide or without fault or not

(1) Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded from the output tax amount if the necessary entries under subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 16 are entered in the tax invoice. Thus, even if an entrepreneur and a supplier on the tax invoice were to have been issued, the input tax amount shall not be deducted or refundable, but may be deducted or refundable from the output tax amount unless he was negligent in not knowing such fact. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527, Jul. 25, 2013).

C) Ultimately, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.