There is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not know that the instant tax invoice was false.

Since the tax invoice of this case was received through the fraud of the other party to the transaction, there is a legitimate reason for exemption from additional tax because it was not known that it constitutes a false tax invoice from the Plaintiff’s standpoint.

Article 47 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Guhap32154 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA Corporation

Head of Seocho Tax Office

August 23, 2013

September 27, 2013

1. On September 1, 2011, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the Plaintiff on September 1, 201 and the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax and the second period of value-added tax for the second year of 2010 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff issued 16 copies of the sales tax invoice of OOOO to the Plaintiff as a corporation that engages in electronic commerce as its main business, and the first and second addings in 2010 from the supply price to the BB (hereinafter “BB”) during the set tax period to ① receive 17 copies of the purchase tax invoice of OOOOB from the supply price, ② Company CCC, and DD and EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.” individually to hear each of the above companies, and “CC3 company” in the event that the above companies collectively refer to the foregoing companies).

B. Based on this, the Plaintiff reported value-added tax in the pertinent taxable period, and received notice from BB that there was no transaction, and discarded two copies of the above purchase tax invoices, which were received from BB on October 31, 2010, and excluded them from the VAT subject to reporting.

C. From May 17, 2011 to August 24, 2011, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff and related companies; and (b) deemed that all of the instant tax invoices received by the Plaintiff as a processing tax invoice and notified the Defendant thereof.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant reduced the output tax amount of the sales tax invoice reported, and deducted the input tax amount of the purchase tax invoice from the input tax amount (e.g., the tax refund occurred). The number of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 22(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same)

each of the above tax invoices (including tax invoices discarded and not reported by the Plaintiff)

In addition to the additional tax on non-performance of tax invoices on September 1, 2011, the added value as indicated in the order shall be added to the Plaintiff.

The tax (additional tax) was imposed (the above value-added tax consists only of the additional tax; hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

E. On November 28, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 28, 201, and the said claim was dismissed on June 28, 2012.

Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 8, 14, and 15, and Eul evidence 1 (including family evidence, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s transaction indicated in the instant tax invoice was entirely different from the processing trader, and there was no circumstance to suspect the transaction. Therefore, it should be deemed that there was a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff could not charge the Plaintiff with fault to impose an obligation on the Plaintiff regarding the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant disposition, which was a penalty tax, should be exempted, is unlawful.

Even if not, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff neglected the obligation to confirm whether or not the goods are moved, as to two copies of the tax invoices, other than the goods subject to the report of value-added tax, which were discarded on the ground that at least the Plaintiff did not confirm the delivery of the goods, among the instant tax invoices, was illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized in full view of the arguments between the parties or between the parties, the evidence mentioned above, and the statements mentioned in Gap 11 through 13, 16, 18, and 22 through 25, and the testimony of the former witness.

(1) The FF is the actual operator ofCC 3, a distributor, and the CC 3 has concluded an entrustment contract with the government-invested BB to develop markets for products manufactured by small and medium enterprises and promote their management and to purchase and supply products on its behalf since 2005.

(2) The FF made investment in the home shopping business to raise funds for the repayment of the debt incurred, and the fact that CC 3, which it operates, is entrusted with the purchase business and sales business by the BB, and the distribution flow of products, processed circular transactions by CC 3 companies and specialized distribution business entities, such as the GG company ? BB ? 3 companies, without any actual distribution of products, used the funds first paid by the specialized distribution company for the purchase of goods for its existing debt payment, etc., and further expanded the above processing transactions. The FF made the above processing transactions by deceiving 3 companies and by deceiving the actual specialized distribution company.

(3) During that process, the above FF made transactions with the Plaintiff (the staff in charge), and CC 3 that it operates with the Plaintiff, and the BB should raise the trading ratio with the superior company to prevent the unsettlement loss. Therefore, the Plaintiff proposed to participate in the above transaction, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice between the small and medium enterprise distribution center and CC 3 companies.

(4) The instant transaction is comprised of B2B (e.g., business to be Busi business, and business to sell various services or goods to the business) as follows. First, the Plaintiff received transaction specifications and tax invoices from BB, and immediately requested the Plaintiff to issue sales tax invoices, and the Plaintiff issued tax invoices to the Plaintiff to the effect that CC 3 received goods, and the Plaintiff issued them to CC 3. In addition, when CC 3 pays the Plaintiff the payment to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff paid the remainder after deducting the commission fee (0.1%). On the other hand, there was no provision that the Plaintiff was a duty to receive or examine goods.

(5) The Plaintiff’s sales revenue from the above fee for the business year 2010 is KRW 0.27% of the Plaintiff’s total sales revenue for the pertinent year.

D. Determination

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of tax claims, where a taxpayer violates a tax return and tax liability under the tax law without justifiable grounds, administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by the tax law, and the taxpayer's intention and negligence shall not be taken into account, but where there are circumstances where the taxpayer is deemed to have not been aware of his/her duty, or where there are circumstances where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty to do so, and where there are justifiable reasons to believe that it is unreasonable for him/her to do so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are revealed through health care and identification, i.e., ① the transaction in this case is basically made as part of FF’s fraud, and ② the Plaintiff’s purchaser was a public corporation, ③ there was no data that the settlement of price was made in accordance with the return during the transaction period, and the transaction in this case is not included in B2C (in the form of electronic commerce, etc. directly provided to individual consumers), so it is difficult to see that the settlement of price is difficult to be made frequently because the transaction in this case is less than the normal B2B transaction fee rate, and it is difficult to see that the transaction in this case was made more than the normal B2B transaction fee rate, and rather, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s transaction in this case was made at a rate that is difficult to take into account the risks of the transaction in this case, and it is difficult to expect that the Plaintiff did not have any other duty to pay for the transaction in this case and that the Plaintiff did not have any other duty to pay for the transaction in this case.

Ultimately, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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