Cho High-201-Seoul Government-5094 (Law No. 13. 27 May 2013)

It cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the issuance and receipt of the tax invoice of this case is not attributable to the failure to perform its duties.

The Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty on the issuance and receipt of the instant tax invoice without a real transaction cannot be deemed a justifiable ground, and the mere fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the receipt of the tax invoice without a supply of the goods does not change.

Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap21571 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAAAia Co., Ltd.

00. Head of tax office

March 28, 2014

May 27, 2014

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 109,65,890 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 2009 for the Plaintiff on September 1, 201, the first period of value-added tax of KRW 645,267,270 for the first period of value-added tax of KRW 193,287,636 for the year 201 and the second period of value-added tax of KRW 326,260,210 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 201

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, a juristic person engaged in the manufacture and sale of clothing products, from 209 up to 209 up to 20BS (hereinafter referred to as “BBS”) in the 2nd taxable period of value added tax, 12,776,625,44 won in total, CC distribution (hereinafter referred to as “CC distribution”), and 8,717,375, 073 in total, 21,494,000, 518 (23,02,07, 79, 207, 209, 209, 379, 209, 207, 209, 379, 209, 207, 309, 207, 297, 209, 309, 207, 309, 207, 297, 397, 209.

B. From May 17, 2011 to August 24, 2011, the Director of the Regional Tax Office: (a) investigated value-added tax on the Plaintiff and related enterprises; and (b) notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff as a processing tax invoice.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) reduced both the output tax amount and the input tax amount on the instant tax invoice; and (b) applied the tax invoice processing, 2009,65,890 won for the receipt of the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201; (c) (d) KRW 14,319,35,353 to the Plaintiff on September 1, 201; (b) KRW 123,975,245,270 to the increased additional tax; and (e) KRW 645,267,270 to the first-term value-added tax in 2010 to the Plaintiff (i) KRW 193,287,636 to the increased additional tax + KRW 451,979,643 to the increased additional tax amount; (b) KRW 326,260,210 to the amount of the tax payable; (c) KRW 87,627,430; and (iv) KRW 28137.7.7

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on November 9, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 27, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including the number with each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the instant transaction was a processing transaction or a revolving transaction. Rather, the Plaintiff continued to receive a normal amount of goods for more than one year after the date of the transaction. Therefore, the Plaintiff believed, without doubt, that the instant purchase entity, such as BBS andCC distribution, was directly engaged in the supply of goods from the instant purchase entity to the DDD Distribution Center. Since the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of due care above the level ordinarily required for the transaction, it should be deemed that there was a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff did not neglect its duty to the Plaintiff in relation to the instant tax invoice.

1) Of KRW 109,655,892, the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000,000.

2) Of KRW 645,267,279, the amount of KRW 9 which is less than 10 won.

3) The amount of KRW 326,260,217 plus less than 10 won.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing penalty on the Plaintiff on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) DDDD유통센터는 중소기업 제품의 판로 개척과 경영 활성화 등을 위해 QQQQQQ공단이 100% 출자하여 설립한 공공기관이다.

(2) 문EE는 유통업체인 주식회사 FFFF이앤에프(이하 'FFFF이앤에프'라 한다), BBBB에스, CCCC유통(이하 위 회사들을 개별적으로 지칭할 때에는 'FFFF이앤에프', 'BBBB에스', 'CCCC유통'이라 하고, 위 회사들을 합하여 '〇〇3사'라 한다)의 실제 운영자인데, 〇〇3사는 2005년부터 DDDD유통센터와 상품의 매입과 납품 등에 대한 위탁계약을 체결하고 그 업무를 대행해 왔다.

(3) 문EE는 홈쇼핑 사업에 투자하여 약 40억 원의 손해를 입으면서 발생한 채무변제에 사용할 자금을 마련하기 위하여, 자신이 운영하는 〇〇3사가 DDDD유통센터로부터 매입업무와 매출업무를 모두 위탁받고 있음을 기화로, 물품의 유통흐름이 〇〇3사 → 주식회사 GGGGGG 등 전문유통업체들 → DDDD유통센터 → 〇〇3사로 이루어지는 순환거래를 가공하여, 실제 물품의 유통은 없이 전문유통업체로부터 물품구입자금 명목으로 대금을 먼저 지급받아 자신의 기존 채무변제 등에 일단 사용한 다음, 위와 같은 가공거래를 계속하여 확대해 나감으로써 전문유통업체로부터 더 많이 지급받게 되는 자금으로 기존에 먼저 지급받은 대금을 갚아나가기로 마음먹었고, 실제 전문유통업체를 기망하여 위와 같은 가공거래를 하였다.

Article 1(Purpose)The purpose of this Agreement is to determine the matters necessary for the supply of goods by B (Plaintiffs, hereinafter the same shall apply) to customers designated by A (DD Distribution Center, hereinafter the same shall apply).

The goods and unit prices to be supplied to A under Article 2 (Items and Unit Prices for Goods to be Delivered) shall be determined by mutual consultation between A and B.

Article 3 (Delivery of Goods)

(1) B shall send goods to a customer designated by A within three business days including the date on which the test for delivery is requested by A.

(2) B When any loss (including the receipt of another person), damage, defective quality, request for return of goods, request for replacement, etc. occurs at the time of delivery, the re-delivery shall be made immediately.

(3) Where goods are not sent within three business days including the date of receipt of dispatched data, appropriate measures, such as notification of wire due to delay of delivery, shall be taken to the customer who has applied for the goods, and in such cases, Eul shall notify the customer of the acquisition fee of customer information (the name of its own company, the provider of information, etc.

Article 5 (Payment of Price for Goods) A shall pay the price (purchase for sale), and the due date for payment shall be determined by mutual agreement between A and B, only when the goods supplied by B have been sold last to the customer.

(4) While using the position of B2B of the DD Distribution Center as an agent, H offered the Plaintiff to engage in a transaction with the DD Distribution Center, and the Plaintiff and DD Distribution Center entered into a supply contract with the following content on September 16, 2009. On the other hand, LH took charge of the practice of the DD Distribution Center in a transaction between the Plaintiff and the DD Distribution Center from the date of entering into the said contract to November 201, 2010.

(5) The Plaintiff and DD Distribution Center ordered the Plaintiff to pay the price of goods calculated at a unit price determined by DD Distribution Center for the goods designated by DD DD Distribution Center in the form of an order issued by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff received transaction specifications and purchase tax invoices from the Plaintiff, and paid the purchase price to the said purchaser. ② The Plaintiff received the purchase price of the goods with 4.5% profit from DD Distribution Center on the 15th of the following month following the month in which the date when the purchase price was paid to the Plaintiff, and issued a written confirmation of the supply price of the goods to be supplied. ③ The Plaintiff received the purchase price of the goods from DD Distribution Center in the form of an order issued by DD Distribution Center; ③ The Plaintiff received the purchase price of the goods from D1 on the 10th day of the following month following the date when the purchase price was paid; ③ the Plaintiff received the purchase price of the goods from D1 on the D Sale Center; and the Plaintiff received the sales price of the goods from D1 on the D 20th day following the purchase price.

(6) DDDD유통센터는 이 사건 거래 당시 〇〇3사로 하여금 자신의 건물 일부를 사무실로 사용하도록 하면서 전화, 팩스 등 사무실 집기를 제공하였고, 〇〇3사 직원들이 사용하는 사무실이나 본사건물 안내판에는 〇〇3사를 표시하는 표식이 없었다. 또한, DDDD유통센터는 그 대표전화번호로 〇〇3사 직원을 찾는 전화가 걸려오면 소속 부서로 연결하는 것처럼 처리해 주었다.

(7) In order to pretend the above false circular trading as if it was a progressive trading, the E directed the SS to work for the Duna and prepare a false certificate of shipment and confirmation, and issued it to the DoD Distribution Center with a false certificate of shipment and confirmation.

(8) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the Director of the Regional Tax Office of 00, but the Plaintiff was unable to deem that the Plaintiff received false tax invoices from the District Public Prosecutor’s Office of 000 on November 17, 201, with the knowledge of the circular processing transaction, and was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 3 through 22 (if there are each number, including a house number) and the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

Under the tax law, penalty taxes are administrative sanctions imposed in accordance with the provisions of the tax law in cases where a taxpayer violates a tax return and tax liability without justifiable grounds in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, and the taxpayer’s intention and negligence is not considered. However, in cases where there is a circumstance where the taxpayer cannot be deemed to have been aware of his/her duty, or where there is a circumstance where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the fulfillment of his/her duty to pay taxes to the party concerned, etc., and where there is a justifiable reason to believe that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to do so (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du930, Nov. 25, 200

이와 같은 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 위 인정사실 및 앞서 든 증거에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 거래는 기본적으로 문EE가 자신의 채무를 돌려막기 위해 가공거래를 한 것으로 문EE의 사기행각에 따라 이루어졌고, 문EE는 물류센터에서 업무를 보는 담당자까지 두어 허위의 화물입출고 확인증까지 작성하게 하여, 원고와 같은 구매대행업체가 물품의 이동을 제대로 확인할 수 없게 한 점, ② 원고가 DDDD유통센터 14층에서 DDDD유통센터의 B2B팀 한HH 대리로 인쇄된 명함을 받고 물품납품계약서를 작성한 후 DDDD유통센터의 확인을 거쳐 거래를 시작하였으며, 원고의 거래상대방인 DDDD유통센터는 QQQQQQ공단이 100% 출자하여 만든 법인으로 원고로서는 가공거래가 있었을 것이라고 예상하기 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 원고는 이 사건 거래를 하면서 DDDD유통센터발행의 발주서, 이 사건 매입처 발행의 거래명세표, DDDD유통센터 발행의 납품확인서, II통운 물류창고 발행의 입출고확인증 등 이 사건 거래와 관련하여 필요한 증빙을 모두 수취한 점, ④ 원고가 2010. 12. 초순경 DDDD유통센터로부터 원고의 2010. 11. 1.자 물품공급에 대한 대금지급이 거절되기 전까지는 정상적으로 세금계산서의 수수와 대금 결제가 이루어진 점, ⑤ 이 사건 거래에 있어서 거래물품은 이 사건 매입처에서 DDDD유통센터로 바로 이동하게 되어 있었는데, DDDD유통센터로부터 물건인도에 문제가 있다는 이의를 받은 적이 없는 원고로서는 이 사건 매입처 발행의 거래명세표, DDDD유통센터 발행의 납품확인서, II통운 물류창고 발행의 입출고확인증과 거래대금 입금 이외에 특별히 거래물품의 이동에 대하여 확인할 수 있는 방법이 없어 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고로서는 이 사건 거래가 가공거래라는 사실을 알지 못하였고, 이를 의심할 수 있는 상황에 있었다고 보기 어려우므로, 당초 이 사건 세금계산서와 관련한 부가가치세 신고에 있어서 원고의 의무해태를 탓할 수 없는 정당한 사유가 있었다고 봄이 타당하다.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's above assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.