Daejeon District Court 2012Guhap2407 ( October 16, 2013)

Since a tax invoice received from data constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact and did not fulfill the duty of care, the disposition denying the input tax deduction is legitimate.

Each tax invoice received from a disguised entrepreneur constitutes a false tax invoice, and is deemed not to have been negligent due to the Plaintiff’s failure to make full efforts to verify whether the other party is a business that supplies waste roads, etc.

2013Nu268 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Appellant and Appellant

KimA

- Appellants

The Director of the National Tax Service

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Guhap2407 Decided January 16, 2013

July 25, 2013

September 5, 2013

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 208 on April 16, 2010 against the plaintiff shall be revoked in entirety. The imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 208, 008, OOO of value-added tax for the second term of 2008, OO of value-added tax for the second term of 2008, and OO of value-added tax for the first term of 209 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Purport of the Plaintiff’s appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. Each disposition taken by the defendant against the plaintiff on July 5, 2010 on the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2008 against the plaintiff, and the OOOO(including additional tax OOOO) among the OO(1) of value-added tax for the first period of 2009.

B. Purport of defendant's appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 15, 2001, the Plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale retail business of scrap metal, non-ferrous metals, etc. with the trade name "B metal from the 37th ground of OOdong at OO-si". B. The Plaintiff’s return and payment of value-added tax.

The plaintiff, under the trade name of "CCM, Kim J, KM, and KM, which operate a non-retailing wholesale recycling business with the trade name of "EM, Kim J, KMM," which runs a non-retailing wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "H and II metals" (hereinafter referred to as "the issues in this case when they are collectively referred to as the "company") in the first and second period of value-added tax in 2008, and first and second years of value-added tax in 209, issued 108 copies of OOOOOO tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as "each tax invoices in this case"), and then deducted the input tax amount under each of the tax invoices in this case, and reported the amount of value-added tax in 208, value-added tax in 1, 2008 and 1, 2009."

C. Defendant’s correction notice of value-added tax

On May 15, 2009 and May 17, 2009, the Director of the Central Tax Office: (a) deemed the Defendant to have issued a false tax invoice without real trade; and (b) notified the Defendant of the taxation data; (c) on April 16, 2010, the Defendant: (a) stated that the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice for value-added tax for the first time on each of the instant tax invoices, for which the input tax amount was deducted for the first time in 2008; (b) the first time in the value-added tax return for the first time in 2008 (including additional tax invoices); (c) the Plaintiff’s revised tax invoice for the first time in 2008 after deducting the input tax amount for the second time in the tax invoice for each of the instant case; and (d) the Plaintiff’s revised tax invoice for the second time in 2008 after deducting the input tax amount for the second time in the tax invoice; and (d) the Plaintiff’s revised tax invoice for the second time in 2000OG.

On July 15, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant Disposition No. 1 and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on September 30, 2010, which was dissatisfied with the instant Disposition No. 2, but was dismissed on February 28, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10, 17, 21 through 25, Eul 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff purchased a closed Dong equivalent to the value of supply as indicated in the instant tax invoice from the pertinent transaction entity, and remitted the price to a deposit account in the name of the representative of the instant transaction entity, and as a result of the Defendant’s tax investigation, the representative of the instant transaction entity, including KimD, did not prove that the transaction amount transferred to the Plaintiff was returned to the Plaintiff. As such, each of the instant tax invoices was received through an actual transaction, and does not constitute a “tax invoice different from the fact”. (2) Even if the instant transaction entity, as alleged by the Defendant, constitutes a disguised business entity as the so-called material, even if the instant transaction entity was a disguised business entity, as alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not know the fact of false name, and did not know it, and thus,

(3) Therefore, the dispositions Nos. 1 and 2 of this case are unlawful and thus should be revoked.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where all or part of the requisite entries of the tax invoice are not entered or entered differently from the fact.

"A tax invoice differs from the facts in this case" refers to a case where the content of the requisite entry in the tax invoice does not coincide with the actual subject, value, and timing of the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entry in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services. "On the other hand, the burden of proving that the specific transaction constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the input tax amount deduction is denied on the ground that the specific transaction constitutes a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of the goods." (See Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). However, if it is revealed that the other party is presumed to have a taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that the other party does not meet the taxation requirement (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Nu6664, Feb. 22, 2007).

(b)the person’s good faith and without fault;

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 the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

(2) Whether the tax invoice consisting of a supplier is a false tax invoice.

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 27-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 27-2, Eul evidence 28-1, and part of Gap evidence 28-28-2, and the evidence of the court of first instance which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the testimony of witnesses KimD, MaF and Lee Ho-H by witnesses of the court of first instance, it is reasonable to view that the tax invoice with the supplier of the closed Dong constitutes a false tax invoice prepared differently from the fact by the actual supplier of the closed Dong, and contrary thereto, Gap evidence 12-1 of the evidence of the court of first instance, witness Kim D, MaF, and Lee Jong-H's testimony of the court of first instance as stated in Gap evidence 12-1 is not trusted, and the judgment of Gap evidence 13-1, 5, Gap evidence 14-1, Gap 20, 26, and 31-2, each of the above evidence is not reversed.

1) The CCM was registered as the place of business with the OOO-type OO-type OO-type OM 516-14 as its place of business. However, the said place of business is of approximately 30 square meters, which is inappropriate structure to use it as the place where the waste is stored or sold, and there is no room that the waste Dong was actually stored in the said warehouse. In addition, there was no employee in the said place of business, and there was no facility such as a subway station and a store store. KimD stated that the said place of business was a place where the PP metal, which lent the name of ON, was used.

2) Most of the closed Dong transactions are conducted in cash. Kim DD, the representative ofCC, had no economic ability to engage in the closed Dong wholesale business since it maintained its livelihood before its business registration, and there was no previous work related to closed Dong transactions.

3) OrN purchased waste Dongs on condition that it will pay 3 to 5% of the price of goods in return for non-data transactions from waste-holding companies (mainly small-scale collection companies or unregistered business operators), and KimD did not understand the same details of transactions.

4) The payment that was deposited into the KimD account was deposited into or withdrawn in cash from the account of an enterprise suspected of having been suspected of having been deposited into or withdrawn in other data, and the last distributed account was withdrawn in cash from the account that was later distributed, etc., taking the form of a typical financial transaction in order to disguise the actual transaction through a financial manipulation.

5) At the direction of the NN, KimD confirmed the volume and unit price of the waste consent required by the phone to the sales office, and delivered the money deposited in the business account according to the direction of the NN to the sales office, and only distributed the money to the interim collection on an intermediate collection that deals with the N or ON after withdrawing in cash less than the amount of the money deposited in the business account according to the direction of the N, and did not know the way to purchase or purchase the waste consent.

6) On December 6, 201, 201, the CCM’s waste was purchased as non-data from the zero tax collection or intermediate wholesale without business registration, and the ON submitted false tax invoices and purchase tax invoices by using personal information, such as resident registration numbers purchased by ON on the Internet, and reported value-added tax. KimD stated that the details of the CCM’s value-added tax return were made under the ON’s direction with respect to it, and that it was not aware of the detailed contents. Accordingly, KimD was subject to a disposition that was made by the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on the ground that there was no evidence to deem that it reported the processed tax invoice by the ENF’s office on a small basis.

“7) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, based on the copy of the transaction book (Evidence No. 20-2), and cash withdrawal (Evidence No. 31), it is not a business entity in which KimD was actually engaged and that it was not a funeral business entity. However, even if KimD’s entry and holding of the above book, it is insufficient to say that the operator of the "CCbs" recorded in the book is KimD. Rather, the above book contains the following: (a) the details of the receipt of a large amount of money compared to ONND KimD, the balance of ONNN, the balance of ONNN, the second metal JJ Kim J’s wages and the expenditure of the second metal deposit; (b) the NNF stated that it was not a business entity in which KimND was actually engaged and that it was not a business entity in whose name it was in possession; (c) in light of the fact that KimN’s purchase and payment of money (Evidence No. 31) on the account of ONN’s instructions, it appears that it appears that it was an OF’s statement and an ON1 as a witness.

9) In addition, although KimD paid the closed-end amount deposited in the line of accounts to ON, it is stated that it was due to the fact that it borrowed the purchase price of the closed-dong from ON. However, although it was not disclosed the specific contents of the agreement with ON, it is difficult to see that KimD actually paid the amount to ON as the principal and interest of the loan.

10) 갑 13호증의1, 5의 각 기재에 의하면, 김DD은 5톤 트럭의 차주인 구QQ에게 화물운송을 의뢰하여 위 차량에 함께 동승하여 원고의 사업장으로 폐동을 배송하였고, 구QQ 에게 운임을 지급한 내역이 존재하나, 이는 앞서 본 사정들에 비추어 오NN의 지시에 의한 것으로 볼 수 있어 그러한 사정만으로 김DD이 폐동을 오NN로부터 매입하여 원고에게 공급하였다고 보기는 어렵다.

(B) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

As to whether the Plaintiff, without negligence, was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice was issued in the name of the supplier ofCC, the Plaintiff was issued a copy of the business registration certificate, the representative KimD name, and the copy of the passbook. The Plaintiff started the instant transaction by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos. 7, 17, and 30-1 as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was issued the tax invoice in the name of the supplier. The Plaintiff was sent the corresponding money to the account in the name ofCC, and the Plaintiff was issued the tax invoice in the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office on July 30, 2012, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support that the Plaintiff was insufficient to support that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the tax invoice was issued in each of the instant tax invoice in the name of the supplier, and there was no other negligence. However, there was no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that it was issued in the name of the supplier.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the above facts acknowledged, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6-I, Eul evidence 1, and part of Gap evidence 15-1, which can be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the whole arguments, the plaintiff knew, or did not know, that the plaintiff was not a person who suppliedCC Qa as a supplier, among each tax invoice of this case, it is reasonable to deem that there was negligence even if he knew, or did not know, that the plaintiff was not a person who suppliedCC Qa as a supplier.

1) From around 2001, the Plaintiff appears to have been able to know the structure of the supply of the waste consent, the general transaction behavior of the relevant industry, especially the data transaction, and the risk of the transaction. The Plaintiff should have confirmed the movement route of the waste consent, which was traded prior to the closure of the vehicle from the new transaction partner, and confirmed whether the transaction partner is equipped with basic facilities, such as the guidance for the scrap metal wholesale business, the open site, and the transport vehicle.

2) Although the Plaintiff visited the place of business ofCC, prior to the first transaction withCCM, there was no training room and human and material facilities such as key workers and employees in the office ofCCP as seen earlier.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that he/she received a copy of the passbook fromCC and deposited the price into the account under the name ofCC and constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence. However, the copy of the passbook is merely designating the account to be deposited.

4) Even if the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition that was not suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it merely constitutes insufficient evidence to prove the above crime, and solely on such circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that the tax invoice issued by making the Plaintiff as the supplier was a false tax invoice, or that the Plaintiff was a bona fide trading party.

5) As such, even though the Plaintiff confirmed thatCC was not equipped with human and material facilities for scrap metal wholesale business, it does not seem that it made full efforts to confirm whether it constitutes a company that actually supplies waste transportation to the Plaintiff, such as the failure to prepare and keep account books on the vehicle operation log or material receipt and payment status even during the course of the transaction.

(C) As to the tax invoice of this case with the issuer ofCC as to each of the tax invoices of this case, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff.

(A) Whether a tax invoice is false

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 27-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 27-1, Eul evidence 27-1, Eul evidence 28-2, part of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 28-1, and part of Eul evidence 28-2, and evidence of the court of first instance KimD, Lee F, and Lee Ho-H witness's testimony in this case, it is reasonable to view that the tax invoice with the supplier of Eul metal in this case constitutes a false tax invoice prepared differently from the fact by the actual supplier of the closed Dong. Contrary thereto, Gap evidence 12-2, and some testimonys of Eul evidence 13-2, 5, Gap evidence 14-1, 20-1, 206, 231-2, and 28-1, each of the above evidence and evidence are not reversed.

1) EE금속은 OO시 OO읍 OO리 345-24를 사업장 소재지로 하여 사업자등록을 하였다. 그러나 위 사업장 소재지는 약 40평 규모의 창고로서 폐동을 보관하거나 판매하는 장소로 사용하기에 부적절한 구조로 되어 있고, 우| 창고에 폐동이 실제로 보관된 적도 없다. 또한 위 사업장에는 직원이 없었고, 계근대, 집게차 등의 시설이 설치되지도 아니하였다.

2) Most of the closed Dong transactions are conducted in cash. The EM representative of the EE metal has been living before the registration of the business, and there was no economic ability to engage in the closed Dong wholesale business, and there was no previous work related to the closed Dong transactions.

3) OrN purchased waste Dongs on condition that it will pay 3 to 5% of the price of goods in return for non-data transactions from waste-holding companies (mainly small-scale collection companies or unregistered business operators). NF failed to properly understand the details of such transactions.

4) The amount deposited into the changed FF account was deposited into or withdrawn in cash from the account of an enterprise suspected of having been suspected of having been suspected of having been deposited in other data, and the last distributed account was withdrawn in cash at less than the amount of OOO won, and thus, was in the form of a typical financial transaction in order to disguised real transactions through financial manipulation.

5) Under the direction of the NN, the NF confirms the volume and unit price of the waste consent required by the phone to the NN, and delivers the money deposited in the business account according to the NN’s direction to the N, and only delivers it to the N or the intermediate collection on an intermediate collection that deals with the N or the NN, and did not know the course of purchase or the purchaser of the waste consent.

6) The closure of the EM was purchased from the small-scale or intermediate wholesale without registration of most of the ON, and the ON used personal information such as resident registration numbers purchased through the Internet and reported value-added tax by falsely setting up the name of the purchaser of the waste resources and the purchase tax invoice using the personal information. The NF stated that, in the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the NN on itself, the NN was given instructions on the details of the CCM’s value-added tax return, and that detailed contents were not known.

On December 6, 2011, KimD received a disposition of suspicion on the grounds that there was no evidence to deem that it prepared and reported the processed tax invoices from the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office.

“7) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that EM is a business entity substantially engaged in variable and is not a nominal funeral business entity on the basis of EEM copy (Evidence No. 20-2), and money delivery (Evidence No. 31). However, even if variableF is preparing and holding the above book, it is insufficient for the operator of the EM, recorded in the book, to be a variableF. Rather, the above book contains the following: (a) NN is paid a large amount of money compared to END, KimD, ON’s balance; (b) the payment of the two metal Kim JJ’s pay and the payment of the two metal deposit, which are the ONN’s name funeral business entity; (c) OF’s statement that the EMM purchased money on the account of ONN’s instructions, and it is difficult for ONF to make a statement on the ONF’s purchase and transfer of money on the account of OND and OF’s statement that it is also difficult for ON1’s statement on the account of OF.

9) In addition, although the HF made a payment to ON of the closed-end amount deposited into the account, it is stated that it was due to the borrowing of the closed-dong amount from ON, it is difficult to regard the amount that the GD paid to ON as the principal and interest of the borrowed amount.

(B) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

As to whether the Plaintiff, without negligence, was unaware of the fact that the EM was a supplier of each of the tax invoices of this case, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-guilty suspicion on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the EM was a supplier of the tax invoices of this case, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff as a supplier of each of the tax invoices of this case on July 30, 2012, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was issued a copy of the business registration certificate, a copy of passbook, etc. from EM, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the pertinent money to the account in the name of EM, after the receipt of the tax invoice in the name of EM from EM, and there was insufficient evidence to support otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the above facts acknowledged, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 1, 7, and part of Gap evidence 15-1, the whole purport of the pleadings can be added to the facts acknowledged as above, the plaintiff was negligent even if he knew, or was unaware, that the EM was not a supplier of the E metal among the tax invoices of this case.

1) From around 2001, the Plaintiff appears to have been able to know the structure of supply of the waste consent, the general transaction behavior of the relevant industry, especially the data transaction, and the risk of the transaction. The Plaintiff should have confirmed the movement route of the waste consent, which was traded before being supplied with the waste from a new customer, and confirmed whether the transaction partner is equipped with basic facilities, such as the guidance, night site, transport vehicle, etc. for the scrap metal wholesale business.

2) The Plaintiff visited the EM’s workplace prior to the initial transaction with the EM, but there was no human and physical facilities, such as employees, fraternitys, and studs, in the EM office as seen earlier. Meanwhile, the NF stated that there was no permanent data on B metal operated by the Plaintiff at the time of the investigation by the Central and Medium Enterprise Regional Tax Office.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that he receives a copy of the passbook from EM, and that it constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence by depositing the price into an account under the name of EM, but the copy of the passbook is merely designating the account to be deposited.

4) Even if the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of no suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it merely constitutes insufficient evidence to prove the above crime, and solely on such circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not know that the tax invoice issued with EM as a supplier was a false tax invoice, or that the Plaintiff was a bona fide transaction party.

5) As such, even though the Plaintiff confirmed that the EM metal was not strong for human and material facilities for the scrap metal wholesale business, it does not seem that the Plaintiff made full efforts to confirm whether the EM is an entity that actually supplies waste transportation to the Plaintiff, by failing to prepare and keep account books on the current status of vehicle operation and material receipt even during the course of the transaction.

"(C) Therefore, each of the instant tax invoices with EE metal issuer constitutes a different tax invoice from the facts. It cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff's failure to know it." (4) As to the tax invoice with GG metal supplier.

(A) Whether a tax invoice is false

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 27-3, Eul evidence 27-3, and Eul evidence 3 as well as witness of this court, it is reasonable to view that a tax invoice with GG metal as a supplier of each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice prepared differently from the fact by the actual supplier of the closed Dong, and contrary thereto, Gap evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 12-3 as well as part of the testimony of this court witness of this court, are not believed, and it is not sufficient to reverse the above judgment with the only statement of evidence 21-5 as to Gap evidence 21 to 5, and there is no other counter-proof.

1) GG metal registered its business with the OO-Eup O-type O-type O-type 516 place of business. However, the location of the above place of business was the first floor of the warehouse-type building that had no office fixtures, etc. after the opening date of the business and was in the long-term closure status, and there was no regular employee, and there was no guidance platform or store set up.

2) Most of the closed Dong transactions are conducted in cash. This H, the representative of GG metal, has been living in the process of acting on behalf of the operator of the GG metal before the registration of the business, and has no economic ability to engage in the closed Dong wholesale business, and there was no previous work related to the closed Dong transaction. This H has been stated as having registered its business upon request of the N, which is a village.

3) The amount deposited into the HH account was deposited into or withdrawn in cash from the account of an enterprise suspected of having been suspected of having been suspected of having been deposited into or withdrawn in other data, and the last distributed account was withdrawn in cash from the account that was later distributed, etc., taking the form of a typical financial transaction in order to disguise the actual transaction through a financial manipulation.

4) At the direction of the NN, this H verified the volume and unit price of the waste consent required by the phone to the seller, and delivered the money deposited in the business account according to the NN’s instruction to the seller, and then delivered the money to the interim collector trading with the N or ON as waste, after withdrawing in cash the money deposited in the business account under the direction of the NN.

5) The closure of the GG metal was mostly made from the small-scale or intermediate wholesale without business registration, and it was falsely prepared and reported value-added tax by using personal information, such as resident registration numbers purchased by the NN on the Internet and using the waste resources purchase name list and purchase tax invoice. This H also stated that the content of the GG metal’s value-added tax was made by the NN’s instruction, and that the content was not known.

6) Although this H stated to the effect that he was present as a witness in the trial and operated the GG metal on his own account, it is difficult to believe this in light of the aforementioned circumstances and the content of testimony.

(B) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

With respect to whether the Plaintiff, without negligence, was unaware of the title of the tax invoice in each of the tax invoices of this case as a supplier of GG metal, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the title of the tax invoice, Gap evidence 10-1, Gap evidence 11-1, Gap evidence 23-1, and evidence No. 30-1, the Plaintiff was issued the name of the representative, copy of the passbook, etc. from GG metal and started the instant transaction. The Plaintiff was issued the tax invoice in its name from GG metal and remitted the money corresponding thereto to the account in the name of GG metal. The Plaintiff could not be found to have been subject to a disposition of suspicion on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that GG metal was in the name of data, but the fact of recognition alone alone is insufficient to support that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that each of the tax invoices of this case, among the suppliers of this case.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged as above, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 3-2, and part of Gap evidence 16, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the whole purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was negligent, even though he knew, or did not know, that the GG metal was not a supplier of any tax invoice issued with the GG metal of this case.

1) From around 2001, the Plaintiff appears to have been able to know the structure of the supply of the waste consent, the general transaction behavior of the relevant industry, especially the data transaction, and the risk of the transaction. The Plaintiff should have confirmed the movement route of the waste consent, which was traded before being supplied with the waste from the new transaction partner, and confirmed whether the transaction partner’s facilities such as the guidance, the open site, the transport vehicle, etc. for the scrap metal wholesale business have been stronged.

2) The Plaintiff visited the place of business of the GG metal prior to the initial transaction with the GG metal, but there was no exhaustr, employee, etc. in the office of the GG metal as seen earlier.

3) The Plaintiff received a telephone from female employees (hereinafter “NN’s accounting officer”) without contact with this H, with the exception that this H had transported twice the closed-dong at the time of the initial transaction, and then transferred the money to the account of this H, while the transportation business entity received a transport-based closed-dong, which was transported by the transport business entity.

4) The Plaintiff asserts that he receives a copy of the passbook from the GG metal, and that it constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence by depositing the price into the account under the name of the GG metal, but the copy of the passbook is merely a designation of the account to be deposited.

5) Even if the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-guilty suspicion of violation of the Tax Act, it is merely a lack of evidence to prove the above criminal facts, and solely on such circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not know that the tax invoice issued by designating GG metal as a supplier was a false tax invoice, or that the Plaintiff was a bona fide trading party.

6) As such, even though the Plaintiff confirmed that the GG metal was not equipped with human and physical facilities for the scrap metal wholesale business, it does not seem that the Plaintiff made full efforts to verify whether the GG metal is a business entity that actually supplies waste transportation to the Plaintiff, such as the failure to prepare and keep account books on the current status of vehicle operation log or material receipt even during the course of the transaction.

“(C) Therefore, each of the instant tax invoices that the issuer of GG metal constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact, and it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff.” (5) As to the tax invoice that made the supplier of II metal as a supplier.

(A) Whether a tax invoice is false

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6-2, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 27-3, Eul evidence 28-2, Eul evidence 3-3, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 5-1, and Eul evidence 2, each of the tax invoices of this case can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the argument to the whole purport of the argument, it is reasonable to view that the tax invoice of this case with double metal supplier constitutes a false tax invoice prepared differently from the fact by the actual supplier of the closed Dong.

1) The second metal registered its business with the OO-type O-type O-type 155 as the place of business. However, the said place of business was inappropriate to keep the closed Dong, etc. as one of the two storage facilities of a size of 60 square meters, and there was no employee who works, and there was no employee who works for a subway station or a store, etc., and there was no employee who was used for the place of business.

2) Most of the closed transactions are conducted in cash. The KimJ, the representative of the second metal, has no economic ability to engage in the closed-dong wholesale business as it maintains its livelihood while driving on behalf of the applicant for the second metal business before the registration of the business, and there was no previous work related to the closed-dong transaction. KimJ leased the above place of business to register the business in accordance with the orders of the ONN in the latter part of 2008.

3) The payment that was deposited into the Kim J account was deposited into or withdrawn in cash from the account of an enterprise suspected of having been suspected of having been deposited in other data, and the last distributed account was withdrawn in cash from the account that was later distributed, etc., taking the form of a typical financial transaction in order to disguise a real transaction through a financial manipulation.

4) The Kim J confirmed the volume and unit price of the waste consent required by telephone to the same seller as the Plaintiff and delivered the NN to the NN, and, if NN is notified of the vehicle number by telephone, he/she transferred the vehicle to the NN prior to the seller by leaving the vehicle in front of the seller, supplied the vehicle, and then withdrawn the amount deposited into the deposit account in cash and delivered it to the NN.

5) On the other hand, the closure of the second metal was made from the small-scale or intermediate wholesale without business registration, and ON used personal information such as the resident registration number and purchased by ON on the Internet, thereby falsely preparing a false list of waste resources purchasers and purchase tax invoice and filing a value-added tax return.

(B) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault

With respect to whether the Plaintiff, without negligence, was unaware of the title of the tax invoice with the supplier of the second metal, the Plaintiff started the instant transaction after obtaining a copy of the business registration certificate from the second metal and remitting money to the account in the name of the second metal. On July 30, 2012, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the title of the tax invoice with the supplier of the second metal, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspicion on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the second metal was in material, but the fact of recognition alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing of the title of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff as the supplier of the second metal among each of the tax invoice of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff, in fact, knew, or did not know, that the second metal was not a supplier of any tax invoice issued by him/her, even if he/she knew or did not know that the second metal was not a supplier of any of the tax invoices issued by him/her, it is reasonable to deem that there was negligence.

1) From around 2001, the Plaintiff appears to have been able to know the structure of the supply of the waste consent, the general transaction behavior of the relevant industry, especially the data transaction, and the risk of the transaction. The Plaintiff should have confirmed the movement route of the waste consent, which was traded prior to the closure of the vehicle from the new transaction partner, and confirmed whether the transaction partner has basic expenses, such as the guidance for the scrap metal wholesale business, the open site, and the transport vehicle.

2) Even though the initial transaction price with the second metal does not amount to an OOO, the Plaintiff did not visit the place of business of the second metal, or did not confirm the purchasing place, etc. of the consent to the KimJ.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that himself/herself receives a copy of the passbook from his/her second metal, and deposits into the account under the name of his/her second metal and constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence, but the copy of the passbook is merely a designation of the account to be deposited.

4) Even if the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition that was not suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it merely constitutes insufficient evidence to prove the above crime, and solely on such circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not know that the tax invoice issued with the second metal supplier was a false tax invoice, or that the Plaintiff was a bona fide trading party.

5) As can be seen, the Plaintiff did not verify whether the second metal is equipped with human and material facilities for scrap metal wholesale business, and did not prepare and keep account books recording the current status of vehicle operation log and material supply, and does not seem to fully endeavor to verify whether the second metal is a business that actually supplies waste copper to the Plaintiff.

(C) Accordingly, each of the instant tax invoices that the issuer of the second metal constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact, and it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff.

(A) Whether a tax invoice is false

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 6-2 and Eul evidence 4, each of which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the tax invoice with KMM as a supplier of the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice prepared differently from the fact by the actual supplier of the closed Dong, and contrary thereto, Gap evidence 12-4 is not believed and there is no other counter-proof.

1) On November 6, 2007, KMM is a business entity that registered its business with its place of business, its place of business, its place of business, its representative, and its non-explosive scrap metal retail as its business purpose. However, the above business establishment was used as almost as a warehouse without a regular employee from the office of 10 appraised quantities, and its place of business was not installed, and only leased on April 30, 2008.

2) Although the husband of KM, the actual representative of KM, claimed that he/she lent and used the SS metal open site located in the city of lowernam, he/she did not make a consistent statement as to whether the rent was paid.

3) The 99.8% of the total purchase amount for the first period of KM in 2009 accounts for GG metal. GG metal not only can be determined as so-called data merchants as seen earlier, but also the details of the deposit and withdrawal of the business account of KG metal were found not to be inconsistent with the details of the transfer for the GG metal.

4) In addition, the abnormal transaction flow was confirmed, such as the occurrence of sales or the occurrence of a large quantity of sales than the purchase volume, in the absence of the purchase volume on the list of KM on the purchase of the goods.

"5) On the other hand, the money deposited into KM is deposited into the account in the name of ON and the data merchant as seen earlier, and then takes the typical form of transaction "such as data withdrawn in cash on a unit of less than OOOO won through a variety of distributed transfer", and (b) whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault.

As to whether the Plaintiff, without negligence, was unaware of the title of the tax invoice with the KM as the supplier, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the title of the tax invoice with the KM as the supplier, Gap evidence 11-2, Gap evidence 24, and Gap evidence 30-2, the Plaintiff was issued a copy of the passbook from KM and commenced the instant transaction. The Plaintiff received the tax invoice in its name from KM and remitted the price to KM. On July 30, 2012, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the title of the tax invoice issued by KM as the supplier. However, the fact of recognition alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was not negligent in the Plaintiff’s failure to know of the fact of the title of the tax invoice issued by designating KMM as the supplier, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire argument in each of the statements in Gap evidence 6-2, Gap evidence 24, Eul evidence 4, the plaintiff was negligent even if he knew, or did not know, that KM was not a person who supplied the closing of the tax invoice issued with KM as a supplier, among the tax invoices of this case.

1) From around 2001, the Plaintiff appears to have been able to know the structure of supply of the waste consent, the general transaction behavior of the relevant industry, especially the data transaction, and the risk of the transaction. The Plaintiff should have confirmed the movement route of the waste consent, which was traded before being supplied with the waste from a new customer, and should have confirmed whether the transaction partner took charge of basic facilities, such as the guidance for the scrap metal wholesale business, the open site, the transport vehicle, etc.

2) The Plaintiff asserted that he visited the place of business of KM prior to the initial transaction with KM, but there was no human and material facilities, such as employees and fraternitys, at the office of KM. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that he visited the site of KM located at the time of OO, but the location of the said site is at all different from the location of the place of business on the business registration certificate, as it had already been used as the site of SS metal, there was sufficient room for doubt as to whether the Plaintiff actually continued the business at the above place.

3) In the course of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff considered the KM’s representative of KM as the wife of newT, and did not verify who is the actual business operator of KM.

4) The Plaintiff received a copy of the passbook in the name of KM and argued that it constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence by depositing money into the KM account. However, the copy of the passbook is merely designating the account to be deposited.

5) Even if the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of no suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it merely constitutes insufficient evidence to prove the above crime, and solely on such circumstance, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not know that the tax invoice issued by making KM as a supplier was a false tax invoice, or that the Plaintiff was a bona fide trading party.

6) As such, even though the Plaintiff confirmed that KMM was not equipped with human and material facilities for scrap metal wholesale business, the Plaintiff did not prepare and keep account books recording the current status of vehicle operation log or material receipt even during the course of the transaction, and it does not seem that the Plaintiff made full efforts to confirm whether KM actually supplied the Plaintiff with waste metal.

(C) Therefore, among each of the tax invoices of this case, the tax invoices representing KMM as the issuer are different from the facts, and there is no negligence on the part of the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's failure to know it.

In conclusion, each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a "tax invoice different from the facts", and the plaintiff is not negligent in believing that each of the tax invoices of this case is not a "tax invoice different from the facts". Thus, the 1, 2 disposition of this case, which was made by denying the input tax deduction of each of the tax invoices of this case, is lawful,

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair in its conclusion, it shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be justified in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal shall