early 201J 1339 ( October 21, 2011)

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice which is not prepared differently by the actual supplier of the closed Dong.

The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice which is different from the fact that the actual supplier actually supplies the Dong-dong through a disguised transaction without a real transaction, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault in believing that the instant tax invoice was properly prepared.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax, 3598

The two AA

Head of the Office of Government

April 24, 2012

May 15, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on September 7, 2010 against the Plaintiff on September 7, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale business of non-ferrous metal (e.g., electronic scrap, etc.) under the trade name “BBT” from 000 UOOdong 00 at the Government-si.

B. In January 2009, the Plaintiff received 6 copies of the tax invoice (hereinafter “the first tax invoice”) equivalent to the total value of supply from the OM in the taxable period of the value-added tax, and 4 copies of the tax invoice (hereinafter “the second tax invoice”) totaling the value of supply fromCC metal, and reported and paid the value-added tax to the Defendant including the value of supply in the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On September 7, 2010, the Defendant: (a) decided not to deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount on the grounds that each of the instant tax invoices was written differently; and (b) issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 000 on the Plaintiff for the period of January 1, 2009.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was actually supplied with DM andCC metal and subsequently traded the purchase price in normal terms. Each of the instant tax invoices is not false, but is not false, and even if it was false, the Plaintiff constitutes a trade party acting in good faith, and the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Whether each of the instant tax invoices is false

(5) The meaning of the entry in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact. It is reasonable to view that each of the instant tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice with the actual supplier of the goods or services, regardless of the formality of the transaction agreement entered between the parties with respect to the goods or services, and that the actual supplier of the goods or services was not in compliance with the initial purpose of each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 through 6, and that each of the instant tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff was not in conformity with the actual supplier of the goods or services. (1) Even if the Plaintiff’s actual supplier of the goods or services purchased the goods or services at a 0-year-old store-type sales account without any actual transaction, it was found that there was no previous 0-year-end transaction of the goods or services purchased the goods or services, and that there was no previous 0-year-type transaction of the goods or services purchased goods or services in the name of the owner of the goods or services.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

구 부가가치세법(2008.12.26.법률 제9268호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제17조 제2항 제1의2호는 세금계산서의 필요적 기재사항이 사실과 다르게 기재된 경우 매입세액의 공제를 허용하지 아니한다고 규정하고 있고， 이는 전단계세액공제방식 하에서 과세 자료를 양성화하여 세수를 확보하려는 데 주된 취지가 있는 것이다. 따라서 공급받는 자가 실제 공급자와 세금계산서의 공급자가 다른 세금계산서를 교부받았다면 세금계산서의 명의위장 사실을 알지 못하였고 알지 못하였음에 과실이 없다는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 매입세액을 공제 내지 환급받을 수 없으며， 공급받는 자가 위와 같은 명의 위장 사실을 알지 못한 데에 과실이 없다는 점은 매입세액의 공제 내지 환급을 주장하는 자가 입증하여야 한다(대법원 2002. 6. 28. 선고 2002두2277 판결 등 참조). 원고가 이 사건 각 세금계산서의 명의위장 사실을 알지 못하였고 알지 못한 데 과실이 없는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대 갑 제1 내지 8호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면， 원고가 DD금속， CC금속으로부터 이 사건 각 세금 계산서를 교부받은 후 그에 해당하는 돈을 DD금속， CC금속에게 송금한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나， 위 인정사실만으로 원고가 이 사건 각 세금계산서의 명의위장 사실을 알지 못하였고 알지 못한 데 과실이 없다고 보기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 오히려 다음과 같은 사정을 종합하면， 원고는 DD금속 CC금속이 실제로 이 사건 각 세금계산서상 폐동을 공급하는 자가 아니라는 사실을 알았거나， 알지 못하였다고 하더라도 거기에 과실이 있었다. ① 원고가 종사하고 있는 폐자원 업계는 위장 및 가공거래의 가능성이 크므로，원고로서는 새로운 거래처에게서 폐동을 공급받기 전에 거래되는 폐동의 이동 경로를 확인하고， 그 거래처가 고철도매업을 위한 계근대， 야적장， 운송차량 등 기본설비를 갖추고 있는지 여부를 확인하여야 한다. ② 원고는 2009. 1기에 DD금속， CC금속과 처음 거래하게 되었는데， DD금속은 사업자등록증상 사업장 소재지에서 실제 영업한 사실이 없었으므로， 원고가 실제로 위 사업장을 방문하였더라면 DD금속이 '자료상'에 지나지 않음을 쉽게 확인할 수 있었을 것으로 보인다. ③ 원고는 하남시에 위치한 CC금속의 야적장을 방문한 사실이 있다고 주장하나， 위 야적장의 위치는 사업자등록증상 사업장 소재지와 전혀 다를 뿐 아니라， 이미 QQ금속의 야적장으로 사용되고 있었으므로， 원고로서는 CC금속이 실제로 위 장소에서 영업을 계속하고 있는지 여부에 관해 의심할 여지가 충분히 있었다.

(3) Therefore, each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a false tax invoice, and it is insufficient to recognize the circumstances that the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault in believing that the tax invoice received as such was properly made, and the instant disposition by the Defendant is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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