The early trial of 2015 Swiss561 ( October 22, 2015)

This case’s transaction is a processing transaction, and the Plaintiff received only a tax invoice from another corporation after the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the steel from the existing purchaser.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant steel bars from a new company, not a previous purchaser, but a new company. However, according to other circumstances, according to the fact that there is no reason to conduct a transaction with a new company that has been engaged in the first transaction even though there was a previous purchaser who has been engaged in the instant steel transactions for a long time, the party that actually supplied the steel bars is an existing purchaser, and the instant tax invoice is judged to be different from the fact.

Articles 14 and 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2016Guhap51245 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

O Head of tax office

July 1, 2016

August 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, including KRW 377,295,040, and corporate tax of KRW 43,180,000 for the year 2013, imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale and retail business of construction materials by OO in Seoul OO-gu.

B. In 2013, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “the purchase tax invoice of this case”) that purchased steel in the amount of KRW 2,159 million from BB (hereinafter “BB”) in the 2nd VAT taxable period, and issued the sales tax invoice that sold steel in the amount of KRW 218 million to the CC Comprehensive Construction (hereinafter “CC Construction”).

(C) On September 12, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the sales tax invoice equivalent to KRW 178 million among the above sales tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales tax invoice”) was false and supplied by DDR (hereinafter referred to as “DDR”) in fact, the Defendant rendered a decision to impose an additional tax on the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, that the imposition of additional tax on the instant sales tax invoice was unlawful, and that the Plaintiff’s imposition of additional tax on KRW 395,094,90 (hereinafter referred to as “the initial imposition of additional tax”) was unlawful; the Defendant corrected the imposition of additional tax on KRW 17,79,953 from among the initial imposition of additional tax on November 6, 2015, including KRW 43,180 from the corporate tax for year 2013, KRW 10,000, KRW 370 from the initial imposition of additional tax; and each of the above imposition of additional tax on KRW 17,50,770.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) BB had been engaged in the original real estate development business, and two employees had retired on December 1, 2013, and HH was appointed as the representative director of BB on December 19, 2013, when the representative director of DD, who operated sales business, such as steel bars, was appointed on December 19, 2013. Since that time, the instant steel supply was completed.

2) On December 31, 2013, BB received purchase tax invoices with the content of purchasing 2.15 billion won from DD, and on that day, BB issued sales tax invoices with the content of supplying the said steel to the Plaintiff.

3) The instant steel bars between DD, BB, and the Plaintiff did not have been transferred at a location.

4) In the course of the tax investigation, EE, the Plaintiff’s representative, with respect to the instant purchase tax invoice, issued an order to FF, who is an employee of DD, with the knowledge that the instant steel bars were supplied from DD, and received a request from DD to issue the tax invoice in the name BB and to pay the price to BB after the supply of the steel bars, and made a statement to the effect that the response was not properly heard even though the reasons were asked.

5) As to the suspected fact that the Plaintiff and EE received the instant purchase tax invoice from the D while being supplied with the instant steel bars by the DD, the Plaintiff and EE received a tax invoice different from the actual transaction relationship on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to deem that EE intentionally received the tax invoice differently from the actual transaction relationship, and received a disposition without suspicion on May 26, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 9, 10, Eul evidence 4, and the whole pleadings

chapter 6

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff directly purchased the instant steel bars from DD in light of the overall purport of the arguments and the facts revealed earlier. On the contrary, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that the purchase tax invoice of this case is not different from the facts, since the Plaintiff purchased the instant steel bars from B, is not acceptable.

① The Plaintiff’s representative director ordered and supplied the instant steel bars to DB during the tax investigation process, and the tax invoice was issued in the name of BB. It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was aware or willing to have received the instant steel bars from BB, and it seems that the steel bars were supplied from DD, and that only the name of the tax invoice was different due to the circumstances of DD or BB.

② There was no realistic delivery between DD and BB, such as change in the place of storage of the steel bars. There was no ground to deem that the possession was transferred by means of transfer, etc. of the right to claim the return of the object.

③ While the Plaintiff has been engaged in steel sales for a long time with DD, in the absence of any transaction with BB, HH, the representative of DD, took office as the representative of BB. It is difficult to find out the reason for the Plaintiff to purchase steel sales through BB, which is the first transaction. In light of the above circumstances, there is no difference between the Plaintiff and the purchase of steel sales directly from DD and the Plaintiff in the instant steel sales.

④ AB is a company that has engaged in real estate transaction and was engaged in the instant steel transaction. At the time of the transaction, the instant steel transaction was due to the fact that there was no other employee than HH other than the representative director at the time of the transaction. It is difficult to deem that BB actually had a human and physical basis for engaging in a business related to steel transaction.

⑤ Although the Plaintiff and EE were subject to a disposition of non-guilty suspicion regarding the suspected violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the Plaintiff’s determination by the prosecution that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the part of the Plaintiff cannot be immediately acknowledged that BB is the actual transaction agent.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.