The instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice

It is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Guhap50745 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

November 08, 2016

November 29, 2016

1. On March 18, 2015, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 16,418,630 for the second term of 2010 against the Plaintiff, value-added tax of KRW 13,838,00 for the first term of 2011, value-added tax of KRW 17,446,930 for the second term of 201, and value-added tax of KRW 8,222,060 for the first term of 2012.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 15, 2005, the Plaintiff is a person who runs the scrap metal business with the trade name of ○○○-ro ○○○○-ro from 473-8 to ○○ resource.

B. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices worth KRW 335,526,915 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) from ○○○○○○, operated by ○○○○ as indicated in the following table during the taxable period of value-added tax from 2010 to 1, 2012, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. On May 2015, the Defendant: (a) conducted a tax investigation on ○○ Building operated by ○○○○; (b) identified the actual purchaser of the scrap metal purchased by the Plaintiff as ○○○○; and accordingly, (c) denied the input tax amount on the ground that the transaction between the Plaintiff and ○○○○ was conducted without a real transaction; and (d) the instant tax invoice issued by ○○○○ constitutes a false tax invoice.

D. On March 18, 2015, the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal for adjudication, but the Director of the Tax Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal on December 30, 2015.

Facts that there is no dispute (applicable to recognition), Gap evidence 1, 1, 3, Eul evidence 3 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of all pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, like the instant tax invoice, purchased and supplied scrap metal from ○○ high-water, and thus, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the Plaintiff did not actually supply the scrap metal to the Plaintiff as a disguised company (data) with ○○ ○○ Purpose, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff without knowledge of such fact.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) An ○○○○○ is related to the inter-employee relationship. An ○○○, on January 1, 2008, 2008, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, 268, operated ○○○, and both ○○ and ○○, from early 2009, was engaged in the business of collecting scrap metal on the ○○ high-water and opened ○○○○, upon the solicitation of ○○, on July 19, 2010, in which ○○ was engaged in the business of collecting scrap metal on the ○○ high-water.

2) Most of the money deposited with scrap metal in the agricultural passbook of ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s passbook deposited with scrap metal was withdrawn from cash or transferred to the account of ○○○○○○’s account.

3) Park ○-○ also appeared as a witness in this court, and testified to the effect that the issuance of the tax invoice on the ○○ high-water and the processing of the business was the same as that on the ○○○○○. In particular, he testified that the sales on the ○○ high-water and the sales on the ○○ high-water were managed separately, and that

4) The Defendant alleged that ○○ was issued a false tax invoice in the name of ○○ high-water shop, even though ○○ actually operated and sold scrap metal, and accused ○○ as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

5) On January 28, 2015, the ○○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office: (a) deposited the amount of scrap metal into an account in the name of both ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office; (b) deposited the amount to both ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was paid; and (c) the two ○○ was difficult to engage in the business of supplying scrap metal and issuing tax invoices on behalf of ○○○○○○○ Office; and (b) thus, the statement that ○○○ was given on behalf of ○○○○○ Office

D. Determination

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

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 4 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant tax invoice constituted a false tax invoice, with the evidence submitted by the Defendant, including the evidence Nos. 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false is unlawful.

① The Defendant deemed the actual business operator on the instant property as ○○○○, and took the instant disposition. Based on this, the Defendant cited the following: (a) the overlapping of transaction partners on the instant property with ○○○ and the instant disposition; (b) a large number of transaction partners on the instant property are aware of having transacted with ○○○○; and (c) the owner of ○○○ and the owner of ○○○ and the owner of ○○ and the owner of ○○ and the owner of ○○ and the owner of ○○ and the owner of ○○ and the owner of ○○

② However, it seems that ○○○○’s sales office overlaps considerable part of the sales office with the customer on the property of ○○○○○○○○○○○’s first operation of the secondhand shop and the introduction of one’s trading company for the purpose of ○○○○’s secondhand shop for the secondhand shop’s secondhand shop, which

③ In addition, the statement that part of the sales office on the ○○ Personal Properties referred to ○○○ in the course of tax investigation, and made a transaction with the ○○ Personal Properties is due to the fact that the ○○○○ side arranged the transaction with the ○○ Personal Properties, and that the transaction was conducted on behalf of the ○○○○○ side in place of the transportation, mooring, and tax invoice.

④ In addition, both ○○ and ○○ need to employ a person who is to mobilize for the removal of a building, or to take cash in order to purchase scrap metal from villagers, and requested Park○ to withdraw money in his account and pay money to ○○○○. Park○○, upon the request of both ○○○○, withdrawn cash from the account and paid cash to both ○○○○○○. The transfer to ○○○○’s account appears to have led to the discharge of the existing obligations owed by both ○○ and ○○○○○○. Park○ was managed separately from the sales of the two, and the tax invoice was also issued separately.

⑤ In full view of the relationship between ○○ and ○○○, the developments leading up to which both ○○○ and ○○○○○ was supported by ○○○○○, and the fact that ○○ directly engaged in the collection of scrap metal, which is the main business of ○○○○, is difficult to view the actual business operator on the ○○ high-water as ○○○.

6) Although the Defendant alleged that ○○ was issued a false tax invoice in the name of ○○○, even though ○○ actually operated and sold scrap metal, the Defendant lodged an accusation against ○○○ as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the Defendant was issued a ruling that ○○ was suspected of being suspected of having committed such offense (Evidence of Evidence).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.