early 2010 Heavy3902 (Law No. 19, 2011)

No good faith or negligence of the plaintiff who received a tax invoice different from the fact by the closed-dong supplier shall be recognized.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had been engaged in the closed-end sales business for not less than 10 years, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence, which received tax invoices different from the fact, may not be recognized in light of the fact that the Plaintiff had been aware of the actual status and risk of transaction on data, even if the transaction period remains two months, the transaction amount is a large amount, and the Plaintiff did not confirm at all the route of movement of goods or the basic equipment

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax, etc.

AA Industry Corporation

Head of Central Tax Office

August 10, 2012

November 2, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 on October 1, 2010, and ② the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of February 1, 2009 on February 1, 201 and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was engaged in the closed wholesale retail business, and was issued the tax invoice in Chapter 24 (hereinafter referred to as "first tax invoice in this case") from 2Bmere Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Bmere") as listed below during the 2009 and the 1st VAT in 2010, and from 24 BBmere Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC metal, DD resources, EM, and FBmere, etc.") as listed below, and the tax invoice in Chapter 11 was issued from CC metal, and the tax invoice in Chapter 5 was issued from NA metal, and the tax invoice in Chapter 23 (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice in this case").

B. The Plaintiff included the supply value under the first tax invoice of this case in deductible expenses, filed a corporate tax base and tax amount return for the business year 2009, and deducted the input tax amount related to the first and second tax invoices from the output tax amount, and filed a return on the amount of value-added tax payable for the second and first year 2009.

C. The Defendant deemed that the first tax invoice of this case was a tax invoice different from the fact, and revised and notified the Plaintiff on October 201, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of imposition of corporate tax”), and revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of imposition of corporate tax”), and notified the Plaintiff of the increased and decreased amount of KRW 000 for the second half year of 209 of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition of imposition”).

D. The Defendant also deemed that the secondary tax invoice of this case was a false tax invoice, and that the relevant input tax amount was not deducted from the output tax amount for the second period of February 2009 and the total amount of KRW 000 for the first period of January 2010. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant re-revision and notified the Plaintiff of the increased value-added tax amount of KRW 000 for the second period of February 2009, and revised and notified the disposition of value-added tax for the first period of January 200 (hereinafter “the disposition of imposition of value-added tax”).

E. On November 17, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant imposition disposition of corporate tax and the instant first imposition disposition of value-added tax, and on April 27, 2011, the instant imposition disposition of value-added tax (excluding the first imposition disposition of value-added tax in the instant case), but was dismissed on May 19, 201 and August 8, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, evidence 1 to 2, evidence 3, evidence 1 to 24, evidence 5, evidence 1 to 11, evidence 16-1 to 3, evidence 20, evidence 1 to 24, and evidence 1 to 4 of evidence 1, evidence 1 to 24, and the whole purport of the arguments, and evidence 1 to 4 of evidence 1 to 1 of evidence 1, evidence 24, and evidence 1 to 1 of evidence 1.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, in fact, purchased the closeddong amounting to the value of supply from the suppliers listed in the first and second tax invoices of this case. Even if the suppliers indicated differently from the facts, the Plaintiff, as a bona fide trading party, did not know of the fact, fulfilled its duty of care. Therefore, the imposition of the value-added tax of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(2) As long as the tax invoice Nos. 1 and 2 of this case cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice, it cannot be imposed an additional tax under Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, which would be collected in cases where a taxpayer receives evidentiary documents different from the fact. Even if the above tax invoice is a false tax invoice, the above additional tax is an administrative sanction against the taxpayer’s unfaithful performance of obligations, but it shall not be imposed even in cases where there are justifiable grounds for not being attributable to the Plaintiff’s neglect of obligations. Accordingly, the imposition of the corporate tax in this case should be revoked as it is unlawful

(b) relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

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

(A) Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011) (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that an input tax amount in a case where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. It means that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, and where there is another person to whom they actually belong, the person to whom they actually belong is liable to pay taxes, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, and where the necessary re-matters of a tax invoice are inconsistent with the actual owner, timing, etc. of the supply of the goods or services, notwithstanding the form of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 196Nu166, Dec. 16, 196).

(B) On the basis of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, as follows, on the items in the health stand, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9, 12-14, and 24, and the Plaintiff’s tax invoices Nos. 1 and 2, which the Plaintiff received from a customer, such as BBmer, are identified as false tax invoices or other supporting documents different from the facts. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) It is difficult to deem BB thals, etc. as normal business operators, because they do not have any basic facilities, such as officetels, (BB), empty container stuff offices (CCM), or EM (EM), which are essential for carrying on the scrap metal business, such as open storage sites, high steel bars, and house stals for transporting scrap metal, all of which are used as business assets, such as equipment, etc.

② As a result of the tax authority’s on-site investigation, most of the tax invoices received in the course of the transaction were verified as a processing transaction, and BB pets, etc. were not actually purchased from another transaction party during the taxable period of this case, it cannot be deemed that BB pets, etc. were actually supplied to the Plaintiff as indicated in BB 1 and B tax invoices.

③ On July 24, 2012, the representative of BBG was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and six months for a criminal offense, which issued to the Plaintiff et al., a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to the total value of KRW 000,000, including the first tax invoice in the instant case, without supplying goods, in violation of the Tax Punishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Tax Punishment Act”). At that time, the said sales decision was finalized.

④ The amount transferred by the Plaintiff to a business account, such as BBmer, was fully withdrawn in cash immediately after the transfer, and HH of D resources was deposited in 00 won immediately after the deposit, and this is identical to the so-called “financial account evasion” method typically appearing on the data.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that, while the B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B2 directly transported and supplied the waste B B B to the Plaintiff, it is possible to conduct the above transaction without storage or transportation to store the waste B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B, etc. as a party to the waste B B B B B B B B B B B, etc. merely mediated the transaction between the Plaintiff and the tax collector.

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

(A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were in the name of the tax invoice, and that there is no negligence on the part of those who were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were in the above name should be proved by the person who claimed the deduction or refund of

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the plaintiff was unaware of the name list of each of the tax invoices of this case, and was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence, and the entries in Gap 3, 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 15, 17, 17 through 19, 21 through 23, 25 through 33, and 37 (including each number), and the testimony in the witness lastG is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to support it. Rather, the plaintiff did not sufficiently know or prove that the tax invoices of this case were 1, 2, and 5, 11 through 11, 16, 11, 16, 1 through 4, 1, 20, 20, 1 through 3, 24-1, 24-1, 24-4, and 5, 1, 1, and 4, 1, 4, and 5, 1, 4, and 4, respectively.

① From July 1, 2002, the Plaintiff engaged in the business of collecting and selling the waste consent for more than 10 years, and appears to have been well aware of the structure and distribution channels of the waste consent, and the general forms and methods of transaction in the relevant industry, and the circumstances and risks of data transaction. The Plaintiff and BB tamps, etc. began transactions at the end of 2009 and around 2010, and there were circumstances to suspect whether the Plaintiff was a disguised business operator, such as where the transaction period was concentrated in a short period where two months remain, or where the transaction period is less than two months, the total amount of supply value is less than 00 won.

② The Plaintiff only confirmed whether the waste movement actually occurred without seeking to verify whether the transaction partner actually supplied the waste movement, such as whether the transaction partner confirmed the route of movement of the goods in question, or whether the transaction partner was equipped with the guidance for the waste wholesale business, the open container, and the transport vehicle.

③ The LL, the representative of BB MU, was the case where his transaction partner was aware of the second metal, not the Plaintiff, and at the time when the second metal was determined, the Plaintiff did not pay any particular attention to the transaction details or the transaction partner before the transaction took place.

④ Of the 1st tax invoice and the 2nd tax invoice of this case, the Plaintiff’s processing company’s total weight was measured by being closed from the Plaintiff’s processing company’s second metal, and the supply value and tax amount accordingly are written and received by the accounting staff of second metal. However, it is difficult to find out whether the actual supplier was delegated or not, and it is very exceptional to determine the supply value and issue the tax invoice on the spot by obtaining a measurement statement without the presence of the supplier.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is a party to good faith and without fault since the Plaintiff confirmed the registration of business or the copy of passbook, etc. at the time of commencing transactions with BB mail, etc., but 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 the person liable to pay value-added tax and secure taxation data, and it is not recognized that the Value-Added Tax Act is delivered to the business operator by the head of the competent district tax office, and that the certificate of simple business registration is merely a certificate proving the registration of the business and that the copy of passbook is qualified or required to operate the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15,

(3) Sub-decisions

As seen earlier, the first and second tax invoices of this case constitute false tax invoices which are different from the facts under Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and so long as it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff due to the lack of knowledge, the imposition of the corporate tax of this case and the imposition of the value-added tax of this case are legitimate.

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.