Seocho 2014west 5826 (02.03)

The plaintiff is clearly entitled to non-deduction of the tax invoice because it is clear that he was aware of the nominal violation at the time of receipt of the

The receipt of the instant tax invoice by hearing an explanation from the employees of each company to the effect that the actual operator of each company is the same may be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was nominal, and it is not necessary to further examine whether the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the fact that the Plaintiff was nominal.

2015Guhap6159 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

EAA

The argument that the transaction of this case is not between OM and OM, even if it is based on the argument

As such, there was no transactional relationship with the OO chain at the time the Plaintiff received the said tax invoice.

is apparent. As such, the instant tax even though the Plaintiff did not have any transaction relationship with the O chain.

The tax invoice of this case is different from the fact as long as the OM is stated in the invoice as the supplier.

(1) The plaintiff and OO alcoholic beverages have a real transactional relationship.

The same applies to those cases.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

(A) an entrepreneur that actually supplies and another tax invoice that is supplied by a supplier;

A person was unaware of the name of a tax invoice and was not negligent in not knowing such fact.

Unless there are special circumstances, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the person to whom the input tax amount is supplied above

The input tax amount shall be deducted or refunded in the absence of negligence in the absence of knowledge of the same name.

A person who asserts B must prove (Supreme Court Decision 2014Du42001 Decided February 26, 2015, etc.).

B) As to the instant case, even if based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the purport that the Plaintiff is identical with the actual operator of each of the above companies despite being aware that the OM and OM are separate corporations.

The plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case after hearing the explanation of the OO alcoholic beverages staff.

at the time of receipt of the above tax invoice under the name of the O chain that has no transaction with the Plaintiff.

It is clear that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the documents are delivered, and the tax system is the tax system.

No such fact may be deemed to have been known.

C) As long as the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the name was stolen, the Plaintiff’s name was stolen.

The Plaintiff’s failure to examine whether the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the Plaintiff’s failure;

This part of the argument is without merit.

(3) Sub-decisions

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice, and the plaintiff has acted in good faith and without negligence.

The instant disposition may not be deemed to be a law pursuant to Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

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

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

October 30, 2015

December 30, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 1, 2014, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 200 won for the Plaintiff on 2010, value-added tax of 100 won for 201, value-added tax of 200 won for 201, value-added tax of 200 won for 200 won for 201, and value-added tax of 100 won for 2012 (including each additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 24, 2010 to June 24, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) as a business operator operating a restaurant on the first floor of OO-OO-O-O, Seoul, with the trade name "OOOOOO", during the value-added tax period (hereinafter referred to as "the taxable period of this case") between February 2, 2010 and January 2012, a supplier of an OO chain of a stock company (hereinafter referred to as "O chain") issued a purchase tax invoice equivalent to KRW 87,157,00 in total of supply values of the company; and (b) deducted the relevant input tax amount for each taxable period, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the relevant input tax amount for each taxable period (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case").

Value of Supply

Total amount of KRW 22,185,000 for January 2011, 2012, 31,899,000 for February 2011 7,08,000 for January 2012

87,157,00 won

B. On August 6, 2014, the Defendant denied the deduction of the input tax amount based on the instant tax invoice pursuant to Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and subsequently deducted the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount, and subsequently revised and notified the Value-Added Tax Act on the instant taxable period (hereinafter “Disposition”). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the instant disposition, following the instant appeal. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the instant disposition by asserting that: (a) the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice stating “the registration number and name or name of the entrepreneur being supplied” under Article 17(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including those with abnormal numbers), the testimony of this witness and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased food miscellaneous (main category) as a transaction item on the instant tax invoice from OM, and the supplier entered the tax invoice as OM and confirmed the circumstances thereof to EOM employees EOM. However, EO chain explained that OM is an OM partner, and received the tax invoice in belief that O chain is an OM is a supplier. Thus, the said tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, and even if so, the Plaintiff is a party to a transaction with good faith or negligence.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act 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 facts. In such cases, the meaning that it is different from the facts is stipulated that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is nominal and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier, the person to whom the goods or service is supplied or the person to whom the goods or service is supplied, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the transaction, the taxpayer constitutes a tax invoice different from those of the issuer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2695, Mar. 29, 2012).