It is unlawful that a tax invoice different from the fact is issued for the purpose of obtaining a loan for purchase funds.

A tax invoice purchase transaction is a transaction under the formation of a nominal legal relationship for the purpose of receiving a loan from a financial institution for purchase funds.

2014Guhap1323 Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

1. A stock company of 000;

2. Stock company 00;

1. The director of the tax office; and

2. The director of the tax office.

Defendants Litigation Performers 000

January 8, 2015

January 22, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

On February 4, 2013, the head of the Chungcheong District Tax Office revoked each disposition of KRW 18,746,080, imposed on Plaintiff BB Electric Co., Ltd. and KRW 15,672,590, imposed on Plaintiff BB Co., Ltd. on February 4, 2013 by the head of the competent tax office and the head of the competent tax office on February 4, 2013 with respect to Plaintiff SS Co., Ltd., respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff BB Electric Cable Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff BB Electric Cable”) is engaged in the business of manufacturing electric wires

Plaintiff SS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff SS”) is a company that operates electric wire processing business, and MM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “MM”) is a distribution company that engages in electric wires wholesale and retail business (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above companies”).

B. As to each of the instant companies from November 7, 2012 to January 25, 2013, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office

After conducting a tax investigation on the items of value-added tax, Plaintiff BB Electric Co., Ltd’s supply price of KRW 937,304,268 and supply price of KRW 938,84,68 issued by MM during the first taxable period of January 2012 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tax invoice”) constituted a false tax invoice, and thus, Plaintiff BB Electric Co., Ltd notified the Defendants, the head of the competent tax office, at the time of such investigation, to the effect that both the supply price of KRW 938,80,68 and the sales tax invoice

C. Accordingly, on February 4, 2013, the director of the competent tax office added the value of Plaintiff BB Electric Cable on January 1, 2012.

On February 4, 2013, the director of the tax office and the director of the tax office of Cheongju notified the Plaintiff SS of KRW 155,672,590 of the value-added tax for the first year of February 4, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs, who were dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on May 7, 2013, but thereafter, raised the objection.

The Office was dismissed on June 9, 2013, and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on August 29, 2013, but the appeal was filed against the Director of the Tax Tribunal.

A petition for a trial was dismissed on July 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Pursuant to the goods supply contract concluded between each of the instant companies, Plaintiff BB Electric Cable

From MM to MM, goods have been supplied to the plaintiff SS, but possession and amendment of such goods; or

by transferring the right to claim the return of the object to the plaintiff BB Electric Cable to the plaintiff SS

Since the tax invoice of this case is only intended, it shall be prepared by reflecting the content of the actual transaction as it is.

The Defendant’s instant tax invoice, even though it was not a false tax invoice;

the disposition of this case on the ground that it is another tax invoice does not exist

law.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Plaintiff BB Electric Cable is located in the Chungcheong Sound, which was established in 1997, and is located in the Chungcheong Cable.

Cables by purchasing high-class copper lines (hereinafter referred to as "SCR") or JCR which are basic materials for making;

Electric wires manufacturing 8mm and 100% of Plaintiff BB Electric Cables

- 4-

Gu Sector 1, 2010 and 2, 2011, 2011

each withdrawal 1,734,596 1,975,678 3,710,274 61,340 65,665 127,005

The Plaintiff SS, a subsidiary company, is located in Chungcheongbuk-do, established in 1999, and 8mm, old lines

2.0-2.6mm as its main work to make more increased by adding it to 2.0-2mm or to put it into a number of copies.

Electric wire processing company is an electric wire processing company.

2) MM was established on February 2012 and located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and electric wires and wires.

Distribution companies engaged in wholesale and retail business of raw and subsidiary materials, and the representatives of plaintiffs BB Electric Cable and plaintiffs SS

The largest KK, the spouse of the director OA, serves as the representative of MM. MM is currently a person.

The state of almost little of the enemy and material facilities is the state of transfer.

3) Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and Plaintiff SS have been engaged in SCR processing prior to the establishment of MM.

The plaintiff BB Cable requested processing from the plaintiff BB Cable to the plaintiff SS is mainly the plaintiff.

SCR 2.0/2.6m made from the main cable was sent to the Plaintiff SS to put it up to increase or increase, and the cCR was directly purchased from the Plaintiff SS or supplied to the Plaintiff. The form of commission for processing from the Plaintiff SS to the Plaintiff BB Cable was mainly the form of commission for processing.

8.0m with SCR 2.0/2.6m or with longer thick lines without the plaintiff SSS

work was conducted.

4) The details of transactions between Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and Plaintiff SS between 2010 and 2011 are as follows:

same as the entry.

6) From Plaintiff BB Electric Cable on May 31, 2012 and June 30, 2012, among the above transactions by MM

The transaction of purchase and sale of the plaintiff SS(hereinafter referred to as "the transaction in this case") is called "the transaction in this case".

The specific details of the plan are as follows:

A) Transaction on May 31, 2012

On May 31, 2012, between Plaintiff BB Electric Cable, MM, and Plaintiff SSS as follows:

The number of tax invoices issued to the effect that the transaction had been effected.

B) June 30, 2012

On June 30, 2012, there was a number of tax invoices between Plaintiff BB Electric Cable, MM, and Plaintiff SSS that there had been SCR transactions as follows:

7) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, on the ground that the instant transaction was conducted directly between the Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and the Plaintiff SS, and was not made through MM, notified the Defendants to impose taxes on the instant transaction, and filed a criminal charge against the Plaintiffs on the charge of receiving false tax invoices and of issuing false tax invoices.

8) In the tax investigation, the representative director of the Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and the Plaintiff SS, the representative director of the OA and MM stated the instant transaction as follows.

A) Oral statements of the AA

① The transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable and the transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable and the transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable and the transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable and the transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable and the transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable. In the former case, as the financial situation of Plaintiff SS becomes worse and it is impossible to implement the purchase fund loan, the former transaction by establishing and trading the Plaintiff SS in order to enable Plaintiff SS to execute the purchase fund loan. In the latter case, the latter transaction between Plaintiff SS and the transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable and the transaction between Plaintiff BB Cable by requesting the processing of scrap from an external company and selling JCR to Plaintiff BB Cable or by directly selling JCR from an external company.

② The transaction rate of 2.0/2.6m of SCR supplied to the Plaintiff through MM was determined on the basis of the daily low unit price purchased from the Plaintiff SSS, so that the transaction price may not be less than anything else.

③ In 2010, prior to the establishment of MM, Plaintiff BB Electric sold SCR from Plaintiff BB Electric to Plaintiff SS, and the financial status of Plaintiff SS has deteriorated due to the said transaction, and subsequently did not engage in subsequent transactions. Plaintiff SS first, while paying cash in the Plaintiff B Electric Cable and making it impossible to make cash settlement due to the aggravation of financial status, Plaintiff BB Electric Cable did not supply the same to Plaintiff SS any longer.

④ Plaintiff SS did not have good financial standing, but Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and Plaintiff SS

The purchase fund for the purchase between persons with a special relationship in a financial institution if such direct purchase is made;

Since the withdrawal does not take place, the plaintiff SS establishes MM to obtain a loan from the purchase fund and the source.

JB Electric Cables and Plaintiff SS are traded between them. Plaintiff SS seeks to purchase SCR from outside.

The plaintiff shall be deemed to be at a disadvantage due to the disadvantage of the unit price or time of supply by the SCR supplier.

The reason why they are supplied from the original cable, and if they are directly purchased from the Plaintiff BB Electric Cable, the Gu

Since there is no loan for funds, the plaintiff SS that currently lacks funds is the plaintiff.

It is difficult to purchase SCR under favorable terms from the original cable, and the terms and conditions of the transaction are not good.

It is inevitable to purchase in the subsidiary company.

B) the statement of the largest KK

(1) There is a low level in the case of JCR transactions between MM, but SCRs.

In the case of transactions, OAC did not know that it would not have been the spouse, and it was directly done by OAC.

(2) The actual business has been done by her husband, and the actual business has been done by her husband before the transaction is made.

was known to some extent to which extent the Fund would have been so informed. No action may be taken against the operation of the Fund

(c) human and physical facilities are not well equipped, even if they have been established for a long time;

It is trying to seek a place of business where appropriate facilities have been well equipped.

9) Meanwhile, the prosecutor of the Cheongju District Prosecutors’ Office on December 12, 2012, for Plaintiff BB Electric and Plaintiff SS.

In relation to OA, the title director, "A", "A", has the power to purchase and sell as it operates a manufacturer.

MM is established due to the necessity of the distribution enterprise, and there is a position between Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and Plaintiff SS

It was true that the goods were delivered in the form of transaction, but the possession of the Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and MM is modified, MM

The plaintiff SS and the plaintiff's right to claim the return of the object was transferred in the same manner as the transfer of ownership.

for the reason that the goods can not be supplied only with the absence of MM

The action was taken to the effect that there was no suspicion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 2 to 8, before pleadings

The purpose of body

D. Determination

1) Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) to which the deduction of an input tax amount is denied for a tax invoice received in the course of transaction.

(1) If a tax invoice is not provided for in the section, the term “other tax invoice” shall include the necessary matters to be entered.

The formal description of a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services;

Notwithstanding any entity that actually supplies or is supplied with such goods or services, and the value, time, etc. thereof

It means a case in which the same does not coincide with each other (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu55 delivered on December 10, 1996).

617(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 617) Even if a transaction of supplying goods exists, the supplier

a tax invoice issued by an entity and other tax invoices corresponding to the “illegal tax invoice”

(c)

On the other hand, tax invoices submitted by a taxpayer of value-added tax on the basis of input tax deduction

It is true that the tax invoice has been prepared in a false manner without any physical transaction or that the entries therein are different from the fact.

It is proved to the extent that it is reasonable by the taxation authority, and whether it is an actual purchase or tax calculation;

The authenticity of the entry is disputed, and the entry in the tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is entered.

supply in a tax invoice, provided that the transaction with the taxpayer has been significantly proved to be false;

It is easy to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the actual transaction with a person.

A taxpayer needs to prove this (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the instant transaction is in the form of supply of goods. However, the following circumstances can be seen as admitting the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, namely, (i) Plaintiff BB Electric Cable directly supplies the Plaintiff SDR at around 2010, prior to the establishment of MM; (ii) Plaintiff BB Electric Cable did not engage in the same type of transaction as the PlaintiffS before its establishment; and (iii) Plaintiff B Electric Cable and the representative director of the Plaintiff SS purchased the Plaintiff’s goods from the financial institution for the purpose of supply of the Plaintiff’s funds, and (iv) Plaintiff BB Electric Cable and the Plaintiff SS merely did not receive the Plaintiff’s funds for the purpose of supply of the funds for the purpose of purchase to Plaintiff BB Electric Cable, and if Plaintiff B Electric Cable and the Plaintiff SS are directly traded from the financial institution, the Plaintiff’s profits from the purchase of the funds for the purchase of the funds for the purchase of the funds for the purchase of the funds for the use of the funds for the purchase of the funds for the use of the funds for the Plaintiff BM.

of this chapter.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice.

The defendant's disposition of this case on this ground is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.