Cho Jae-chul201-Gu3084 ( November 18, 2011)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the actual transaction of the supplier.

The tax invoice of this case issued by the plaintiff constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the actual transaction of the supplier, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing or unaware of the fact that the supplier was nominal.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax

male o

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

May 9, 2012

June 13, 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 July 6, 2011 (the date of the disposition written in the complaint is a clerical error) against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff is a business entity that engages in scrap metal, non-ferrous-do and retail business with the trade name of "E non-ferrous metal" from 000, Daegu Northern-gu OOdong 00.

B. In January 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) that constitutes 000 won in the supply price from D (mutual FF non-inform) during the taxable period of the value-added tax, and reported and paid the value-added tax to the Defendant including the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On July 6, 2011, the head of the racing and the head of the tax office conducted an investigation into the FFT iron and notified the Defendant that the tax invoice in this case was the data transaction confirmation, and accordingly, the Defendant deducted the supply price stated in the tax invoice in this case from the input tax amount, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first time, 201

D. On August 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 18, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 5, and Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

A. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff actually purchased old interest from EDR operating FF non-stock and received the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice.

B. Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know the fact, and the Plaintiff did not know the fact at the time of the transaction, and completed the verification required for the normal transaction, such as obtaining the business registration certificate, the resident registration certificate, and the copy of the instant tax invoice, and then remitted the transaction price to the account in the name of “D (FFFF)”, and there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2. A

Article 17(2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact, and "the tax invoice is different from the fact that it is easy to enter the tax invoice" means a case where the contents of the requisite entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual subjects, values, timing, etc. of supplying or being supplied with the goods or services despite the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). A comprehensive review of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account each entry in the evidence Nos. 4 through 9, and this is reasonable to deem that a person who issued only the processed tax invoice without supplying the plaintiff, and a person who actually supplied them is not a third party, and therefore, this case constitutes a tax invoice that is different from the actual ones issued by the Plaintiff from this case.

(1) AD on August 14, 2009, on the trade name of 'FFFFFFffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

(2) The FFFT issued 15 copies of the sales tax invoice of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff et al. to six persons including the Plaintiff for the first period of January 2010, and subsequently closed ex officio on June 30, 2010 without paying taxes at the time of filing the final return of value-added tax for the first period of January 2010, and D was accused of having issued the tax invoice without supplying the goods in accordance with Article 10(3) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(3) On March 19, 2010, around 10:36, the Plaintiff deposited 64.951.150 won in the account under the name of “DD (FF non-ferrous”) (i.e., the value of supply on the tax invoice of this case + 000 won + 000 won). Around 8:44, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 000 on the same day.

B. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 2.B.

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of, and was not aware of, the fact that the supplier was not guilty of, the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact in the name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009; 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In this case, the process of issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, the scale and market price of the goods or services supplied, and the specific light light of, the transaction practices of the relevant business, and the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact in the name of the supplier, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact in the name of the supplier, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact in the name of the actual supplier.

① From November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff operated “E non-metallic metal” in OOOOO in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong OO. Therefore, in light of the experience during that period, the normal structure and distribution channel of the Guide supply, the general form or method of transaction in the non- steel and high railroad wholesale industry, and the data transaction situation and risk were known, and ② the Plaintiff purchased Guide through a telephone consultation with Doide, and the Plaintiff did not prepare the supply contract, and received the goods from the OOO-dong 00 in the south-gu, South-gu, Seoul, as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know the fact that the Plaintiff did not know the name of the Plaintiff, or that the Plaintiff did not know the fact that the Plaintiff did not know the name of the supplier.

5. Conclusion

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