Whether it is a false tax invoice or not, and whether it can be seen as a good faith transaction party

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice, and even if each of the above purchase tax invoices constitutes a disguised transaction as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not negligent.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Suwon District Court 2013Guhap8326 ( October 20, 2015)

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

March 31, 2015

October 20, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 458,784,250 for the first period of December 3, 2012 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2011, value-added tax of KRW 908,334,640 for the second period of the year of 2011, and value-added tax of KRW 601,667,160 for the first period of the year of 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of non-ferrous metal such as waste Dong, etc., and 208.

11. On September 17, 2017, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the second floor of the Seocho-gu 00 building was opened at the place of business, and on September 14, 2012, the place of business was relocated to 000 shopping mall 308, Dong-dong, Sungnam-si, Seoul.

B. From September 6, 2012 to November 24, 2012, the Defendant issued false sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 49,453,473,034 (hereinafter “each of the instant sales offices”) upon receipt of false sales tax invoices equivalent to the total value of KRW 48,930,428,350 from the purchaser without real transaction to the first half of 2012 as listed below (hereinafter “each of the instant purchasing offices”) and upon receipt of false sales tax invoices equivalent to the total value of KRW 48,930,428,350 from the purchase price to the sales offices (hereinafter “each of the instant sales offices”). Accordingly, the Defendant imposed value-added tax taxes by excluding the sales price and the sales price of each of the instant purchase tax invoices from the input tax amount and the sales tax amount of each of the relevant taxable periods, and by imposing value-added tax as additional tax pursuant to the processing tax invoices, the Defendant issued each of the instant sales offices’ total value-added tax amount of KRW 1630,2816,14,270.

C. On March 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal. However, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the said claim on June 14, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 (including the provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff actually purchased and sold each of the instant tax invoices, as indicated in the said tax invoices.

Since each of the above tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice under the processing transaction, it is unlawful to recognize the input tax deduction on the premise that the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the above tax invoices do not constitute a false tax invoice under the above processing transaction. ② Even if each of the above tax invoices constitutes a tax invoice with a false content, the Plaintiff did not know that it was a disguised business operator at the time of the transaction with each of the above purchaser, and did not know that it was a disguised business operator.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the first argument

A) Relevant legal principles

former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 17(2)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes 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 fact. Here, the meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact is the name of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation, and if there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be 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 necessary entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, notwithstanding the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617 delivered on December 10, 1996, and delivered a tax invoice to an entrepreneur who supplies goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, and further, a person liable to pay value-added tax ought to be deemed as a person who actually provided goods or services or who actually provided goods or services to an entrepreneur who is not a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who supplies goods or is supplied, but a person who actually provided goods or services to a person who is provided with goods is not a nominal legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1715, Jul. 24, 2008).

B) The input tax deduction portion

Based on the above legal principles, each statement of Nos. 2 through 21 in the health care unit and No. 21 in this case

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole the purport of the entire pleadings, the purchase tax invoice received by the purchaser of this case shall be deemed to constitute a processed tax invoice without real transactions, that is, a tax invoice with false content, and each description of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 20 (including paper numbers) is insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

① AA (hereinafter referred to as “A”) was established on June 17, 201, and closed on June 30, 2012. The office location of AA is the fourth floor of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, but only one book was public room at the time of the investigation of Seoul Regional Tax Office (from April 4, 2012 to July 2, 2012), and there was no other equipment related to AA’s business, which is the substantial place of business, and the Plaintiff was the maximum seller of AA. 2. At the time of the establishment of AA, the representative director, who was living in Daegu and operated the clothing retail store, did not engage in the business related to A’s sales, and the representative director was not engaged in the business related to A’s 20-year business or 3-year-old business without reporting the total amount of money deposited in the 10-year-old business or 20-year-old business, and there was no experience in the 20-year-end business or 2-based business.

On June 19, 2015, sentenced to the sentence of 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment and 3.1 billion won of fine. b. This appeal is pending in Seoul High Court 2015No1983.

② BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) was established on May 20, 2008, but no sales have been made until June 2010, which was 2010 after Kim C’s office as the representative director.

On July 2, 2013, the sales amounting to KRW 14,672,728,447 have concentrated, and the sales amounting to KRW 14.4 billion has not been paid in connection with the business, including the value-added tax imposed and notified in connection with the business, and was closed on May 22, 2013.B used KRW 1039-2, which is the open storage place leased by the Plaintiff, for transfer from the Plaintiff. BB or B’s representative director, Kim Cc.

The sales amount deposited into the deposit account shows a typical financial transaction form, such as the full withdrawal in cash immediately after the deposit. Kim Cc, the representative director of the BB, is in the process of trial due to the suspicion of issuing or receiving a false tax invoice without a real transaction, including the transaction with the Plaintiff, in the Suwon District Court case No. 2013 Gohap421.

③CC industry (hereinafter referred to as “CC industry”) was established on February 6, 2012, and closed on March 18, 2014. The representative director of theCC industry was only engaged in entertainment taverns in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and did not engage in any business related to the closed-down operation, and the actual representative of theCC industry is An infinite, a bad credit holder. The actual representative of theCC industry is Adddd's private village. While the CC industry is the place of business, the CC industry is located in the Jeju Jeju-dong, Jeju-dong, Jeju-dong, and the vehicle, but it is not equipped with facilities that enable the Plaintiff to engage in transactions, such as closing 18 billion won between approximately 10 months and about 10 months during the 2012 period, such as the details of receipt of tax invoice. The sales amount transferred to the deposit account of theCC industry by the Plaintiff is immediately after the full deposit of the deposit into the deposit account of the Seoul Environment Development Corporation, the Gwangju Cash Corporation, and the Taejin metal account.

The results of the investigation conducted by the tax authorities on the mining environment development of the above corporation were confirmed to be data.

④ On May 11, 2008, D Resources commenced business and closed business on November 24, 2011. D Resources did not have all basic facilities, such as field storage and relays necessary for the disposal of non-ferrous metals; D Resources and sales proceeds deposited into the deposit account of D Resources, their representative, or their spouse’s predecessor’s predecessor’s disease appear in the form of a typical financial transaction, such as deposit in cash immediately after deposit. D Resources, whose representative has not been engaged in business related to D Resources, and the spouse and gggs operating D Resources do not actually have financial ability to operate the closed-dong wholesale business considering income or credit status. The tax authority investigated and investigated the entire sales amount of D Resources as KRW 17,626,00,000,000,168,890,000.

⑤ On July 1, 2011, EEmerhu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Emerhu”) started business and closed business on April 30, 2013 without paying taxes equivalent to 14.4 billion won, such as value-added tax imposed and notified in relation to the business. The sales amount deposited into the deposit account in the name of Emerna or its representative Kim Hh appears in a typical financial transaction form, such as immediately withdrawing the entire deposit in cash. Kimh, the representative director of Emerna, has not been engaged in the business related to the closed Emerna, with the private village of Kim Cc, the representative director of BB. On June 1, 2011, Kim Cc established and substantially operated the Emerna on the ground of Kimhh as its representative director immediately after undergoing the tax investigation by BB as data.

④ The FF (hereinafter referred to as “FF”) started on January 20, 201, but closed on May 31, 2012. The FF’s representative director, Kimii, did not engage in a business related to closed operation, and he was transferred to BB immediately after deposit of the sales amount deposited into a deposit account in the name of FF or its representative Kimii, and showed typical data behavior. The tax authorities demanded the LF to explain the details of transactions with the Plaintiff several times while investigating the FF, but the FF did not provide any explanation.

7. The GG mainure Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "G mainure") started on August 28, 2002.

A. On December 31, 2012, the business closure was closed. Leej, the representative director of GGM, did not engage in the business related to the closed-dong, and showed a typical data behavior, such as a full withdrawal in cash, immediately after the payment of the sales amount deposited into the deposit account in the name of the GGM or its representative. GGGM was not presented any evidentiary document, asserting that the closed-dong was directly supplied to the Plaintiff at the purchasing place at the time of the tax investigation by the tax authority.

C) The output tax deduction portion

Since each purchase tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from each of the purchase places of this case constitutes a processing tax invoice received without real transactions as seen earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually purchased the non-ferrous, etc. equivalent to the supply price of the purchase tax invoice. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually purchased each of the instant

It is reasonable to view that the sales tax invoice issued by each of the instant sales offices constitutes a processing tax invoice issued without real transactions, i.e., a false tax invoice, because it is difficult to view that the goods equivalent to the supply price of the sales tax invoice were supplied to the

The Plaintiff asserted that the transaction with each of the instant buyers was actually conducted, and submitted a measurement certificate, etc. with the evidentiary materials. However, the submitted measurement certificate does not state the name, measurementer, transporter, etc. omitted, and it is difficult to believe the content of the measurement certificate, etc. as it is because the transport confirmation or measurement-related photograph supporting the relevant transaction was not submitted. Moreover, the sales amount transferred from each of the instant buyers to the Plaintiff appears in the typical financial transaction form, such as the full withdrawal in cash, following the process of remitting the sales amount back to the deposit account of each of the instant buyers immediately after the transfer, and thus the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted

2) As to the second argument

(A) a person who is supplied with another tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice.

Unless there exist any special circumstances, in which the purchaser was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice and was unaware of the nominal name, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the person who claimed the input tax deduction or refund should prove that there was no negligence on the part of the purchaser who was unaware of the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) Since each purchase tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from each of the instant buyers constitutes a processing tax invoice received without real transactions as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the said purchase tax invoice actually exists and that only the supplier is a so-called so-called “counter transaction,” different from the nominal owner of the tax invoice, is without merit.

Furthermore, even if each of the above purchase tax invoices constitutes a disguised transaction, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s respective purchase tax amount on the sole basis of the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 20.

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that each purchase tax invoice was false, or that each purchase tax invoice was prepared in a false manner, if the Plaintiff knew that the purchase tax invoice was false or paid due attention to the fact that it was false, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Rather, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit even in this point.

① The Plaintiff, from November 17, 2008 to November 17, 2008, engaged in the wholesale and retail business of non-metallic metals, including the waste Dong, was the normal structure and distribution route of the waste Dong supply, and the general forms of transaction or method in the relevant industry;

The Plaintiff appears to have been well aware of the actual state of the transaction and the risk of the transaction. Therefore, the Plaintiff must confirm the transportation route of the goods in advance before being supplied with the closing operation, etc. by a new customer, and verify whether the transaction partner is equipped with basic equipment, such as the guidance, the open site, and the transportation vehicle for the disposal of the closing operation, etc., but without properly undergoing such verification procedure, the Plaintiff received each purchase tax invoice from the respective purchaser of the instant case, which entered the false information by the supplier.

② The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is a party to a transaction with good faith and negligence since the Plaintiff confirmed its business registration at the time of commencing the transaction with each of the instant purchasing places. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff

The registration certificate is delivered to the head of the competent tax office by requiring a business operator to apply for registration to the head of the competent tax office in order to identify the taxpayer of value-added tax, etc. and to secure taxation data, and does not recognize that the certificate of registration is merely a certificate proving the registration of a simple business fact and satisfies the qualification or requirement to operate his/her business accordingly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the verification of the supplier’s business registration is fulfilled the duty of care as a party to a transaction even if

③ The Plaintiff did not demand a guarantee or security that could minimize transaction risks in order to secure the faithful transaction to each of the instant purchasing agencies, and rather, paid advance payment to some of the purchasing agencies, such as A and B, etc., and the workplace of the purchasing agencies, such as A and B, were the same as the Plaintiff, and could have sufficiently known the transaction methods of each of the above purchasing agencies.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.