Early High Court Decision 201Du1288 ( October 28, 2011)

The tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice entered falsely by the closed-dong supplier, and the plaintiff's good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Each of the tax invoices of this case is a tax invoice entered falsely by the supplier; the Plaintiff has been engaged in collection and sales business including scrap metal for several years; the Plaintiff has not verified whether the Plaintiff had basic equipment of the transaction partner while conducting closed-dong transactions; and the Plaintiff has failed to submit a measurement certificate related to the purchase transaction; and the Plaintiff has failed to state the false statements; thus, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011. Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

The AA

Head of Suwon Tax Office

August 10, 2012

September 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On September 1, 2010, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 ("00,000 entered in the complaint") for the first quarter of 2009 against the Plaintiff on September 1, 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was engaged in the collection and sale of scrap iron, etc. in the name of “BB resources” from 000 OB resources in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and was issued three copies of the tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices in this case”) in the first quarter of value-added tax in 2009, as listed below, by deducting the input tax amount according to each of the above tax invoices, and filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period to the Defendant.

B. However, the Defendant: (a) constitutes a disguised business operator who issued a false tax invoice without a real transaction; and (b) denied the relevant input tax deduction on the ground that each of the above tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff is a tax invoice different from the facts; and (c) corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of September 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 28, 201.

The above claim was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6 through 3, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a)the plaintiff's assertion;

① Since the Plaintiff was supplied with the closure of each of the instant tax invoices by theCC companies, each of the said tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice, and even if not, the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff was a disguised business operator at the time of the closure of the tax invoices, and was not negligent, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false or not

(A) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In cases where the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, and act subject to taxation is merely the nominal ownership of the transaction, and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment, and in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, and the requisite entries of a tax invoice refer to cases where the content of a tax invoice differs from the facts, regardless of the formal entries of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service, the actual supplier, value, and timing of the transaction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by integrating the health stand in this case, Gap evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, i.e., the supplier of each of the tax invoices in this case received a purchase tax invoice of 000 won in total from 135 transaction partners in total in the first taxable period of value added tax in 2009, and the results of the on-site investigation by the tax authorities, and the whole purchase tax invoice is revealed as a false tax invoice issued without real transaction. (ii) The tax invoice was not entirely equipped with basic facilities such as open-site and connected transport vehicles necessary for processing the closed agreement, and if the first place of business of theCC company is Suwon, the supplier could not be seen as having actually withdrawn the purchase price in total from the closed commercial transaction without any false deposit account of the Plaintiff, and thus, it should not be viewed as a false deposit account of the closed commercial real agent, and thus, the Plaintiff could not be seen as a new one.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff’s bona fide and without fault is recognized

(A) Unless there is any special reason that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not aware of the fact that the person who received the other tax invoice was not aware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the person who asserts the input tax deduction or refund must prove that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier on the part of the purchaser. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.

(B) Based on the above legal principle, the plaintiff was unaware of the name of each tax invoice of this case and was unaware of it, and there is no other evidence to support the plaintiff's testimony of Gap 3 through 19 (Ga number), and there is no other evidence to support the plaintiff's testimony of Gap 1 and 5, and Eul 6-1 through 3, and Eul 2 through 4, and the witness's testimony and argument as a whole. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the whole testimony and argument of Gap 6 and Eul 2 through 4, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff could have sufficiently known that each tax invoice of this case was falsely prepared, if the plaintiff knew of, or paid attention to, that each of the tax invoice of this case was false, and at least paid attention to, the plaintiff's assertion of this part is without merit.

① The Plaintiff appears to have been well aware of the normal structure and distribution channel of the closed-dong supply, the general form or method of transaction in the relevant industry, and the situation and risk of transaction in data while engaging in the collection and sale of scrap metal, etc. from August 1, 2006. Therefore, the Plaintiff must confirm the moving route of the goods in question before being supplied with the closing operation by a new customer, and verify whether the transaction partner is equipped with the guidance for the closed-dong wholesale business, the open-site, and the transport vehicles, etc., but without undergoing these verification procedures, the Plaintiff received each of the instant tax invoices from E, which were falsely entered by the supplier.

② With respect to the details of the purchase of end-of-life vehicles listed in each of the tax invoices of this case, the Plaintiff only submitted a measurement certificate on the purchase transaction on April 28, 2009 and June 16, 2009, and failed to submit a measurement certificate on the purchase transaction on April 27, 2009. In addition, the measurement certificate on the purchase transaction on June 16, 2009 is public column, and the entry in the above certificate alone is not enough to find who is the transaction party. In addition, according to the measurement certificate on the past of April 28, 2009, the unit price for the waste traded at the time is approximately KRW 000/km (= a supply price of KRW 00 ± a total quantity of 3,690 km) and the price of the witness at the highest price at the time of the end-of-life stage is at least KRW 700-790,790 km and the present market price at the end of the year.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that, in the course of entering into a transaction with the E, the CC company’s business registration is one of the parties to the transaction with good faith and negligence. However, the business registration certificate does not recognize that the Value-Added Tax Act requires the business operator to apply for registration to the head of the competent district tax office in order to identify persons liable to pay value-added tax and secure taxation data, and that the business operator delivers the certificate to the head of the competent tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, and that it is merely an instrument proving the registration of a simple business fact, and that it satisfies the qualification or requirement to operate the business accordingly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Therefore, it cannot be deemed

3. Conclusion

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