Suwon District Court 2010Guhap3160 ( November 11, 2010)

early 209 Heavy2741 ( December 10, 2009)

Since the nominal owner of the tax invoice was negligent in not knowing that he is not an actual supplier, no input tax deduction shall be made.

The Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice on the ground that he/she received a tax invoice in the name of a legal entity when purchasing non-ferrous metals from an individual, and thus constitutes a false tax invoice. A copy of the business registration certificate and passbook of the business partner was issued from an agent who is not the representative of the legal entity, and that the business registration of the business partner was added to the business registration of the business partner immediately before the transaction.

2010Nu43763 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XXMM Co., Ltd.

Head of Si Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap3160 Decided November 11, 2010

June 29, 2011

September 7, 2011

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 64,345,500 for the first term portion of the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on May 11, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasons why this case is used are as follows: 1. The background of the disposition, 2. Whether the disposition in this case is legitimate; b. the plaintiff's assertion, b. the corresponding part of the judgment in the first instance (the third fifth from the second fourth to the third fifth) is the same. It shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A new part.

A. Whether it is a false tax invoice

1) Facts of recognition

A) The circumstances and ex post facto measures of the Central Tax Office that it has judged XX environment as data;

EAA has received false tax invoices using the name of XX environment, and the YB representative of the XX environment reported to the Central Tax Office and started its investigation.

In full view of the following circumstances, the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that the Company and its business partner received the processed tax invoices using the name of the XX environment, and filed a complaint for the suspicion of the issuance of false tax invoices, such as XX environment, sulfurB, and JungA.

① From March 2008, the PP environment leased and used part of the PAA office of O-Si O-si 000-03 PA office. On April 16, 2008, the business registration was changed in addition to the type of business, and the business was run ex officio on July 31, 2008.

② Items on the tax invoice for the sales and purchase of OO beneficiary are the average of 7,737 won per km from E (A) Dong, dong, and closed Dong, or the export documents for the same period are the average of 2,600 won per closed cable, and it was determined that there was a processed sales of KRW 2,00,000 won per closed cable.

③ Although the △△△△ reported the purchase amount of KRW 5.4 billion from the purchase price on the date of the △△△△△△, △△△△ had closed down on June 30, 2008 without paying the relevant taxes. The △△△△△△ prepared the processing tax invoice and the false book in the name of the △△△△△△△△△△ (State). In light of this, it was judged that the total purchase without real transactions was determined as the total purchase.

④ As above, during the period of January 2008, 98.6% of the issue amount of sales tax invoices issued 6.618 billion won was processed transaction. Purchase tax invoices 6.21 billion won was determined as processed transaction. 9.6% of the purchase tax invoices 6.219 billion won was determined as processed transaction.

B) Transaction form between the Plaintiff and the XX environment

The P environment does not have purchased or sold non-ferrous metal-related products as waste collection and transportation companies. The representative of the P environment, around April 2008, YB received a copy of the business registration certificate and resident registration certificate with the opening of the bank account in return for the amount of KRW 12 million from regular AA and issued a copy of the business registration certificate and resident registration certificate. The above accounts were managed by the PB, and sulfurB was not aware of the details, and the return and payment of value-added tax were also responsible for the PB.

On April 16, 2008, 2008, the representative of the Plaintiff issued a yellowB name stating that it is the representative of the XX environment from the introduction, a copy of the Y environmental business registration certificate issued by the director of the tax office of Siriju on April 16, 2008, a copy of the YB resident registration certificate, and a copy of the passbook issued as the representative director of the XX environment (hereinafter referred to as the 'the passbook of this case') at the Siriju Enterprise Finance Center in Sirisidong-dong. The copy of the above business registration certificate contains a non-ferrous metal wholesale trade as one of the types of business.

The plaintiff made a transaction with the AA, and the price of the goods was deposited into the XX environment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Eul's statements and the whole purport of the pleading

2) The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that where the necessary entries to be entered in the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual subjects, values, and timing of the supply or the supply of the goods or services.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was actually supplied with non-metallic metals from the regularA, and cannot be deemed to have been supplied with non-metallic metals from the XX environment. Thus, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice written by the supplier in falsity.

B. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

1) Unless there are extenuating circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount, unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoices in the name of the tax invoice, and the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the person was the nominal owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

2) The entry of No. 13 in accordance with the purport that the Plaintiff was bona fide and without fault, the testimony of YD witness of the first instance and the first instance trial, and the testimony of YD witness of the first instance trial, are not trusted, and it is insufficient to recognize only the entry of No. 7 in the statement of Y, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the following facts, the Plaintiff appears to have known that the environment is not the actual non-ferrous metal supplier, and even if he did not know of it, there were sufficient circumstances to suspect whether the actual supplier of the non-metallic metal is not the GATT environment, and thus, the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that the instant tax invoice was false.

① The Plaintiff, regardless of the XX environment, was engaged in transactions with Pacific and non-ferrous metal, and all copies of the SP environmental business registration certificate and the YellowB resident registration certificate were issued from YB or the environment, not from HuD.

② The Plaintiff, who is engaged in the non-ferrous metal business, seems to have been able to have known of the fact that data often intervene in the trading of non-metallic metals. There was a circumstance that it is difficult to view that the circumstances in the XX environment had been engaged in the trading of non-metallic metals since it was difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had been engaged in the trading of non-metallic metals since before the beginning of the transaction with the Plaintiff, including: (a) the Plaintiff’s change of business registration in addition to the retail business; and (b) the time when the Plaintiff issued the registration certificate

C. Whether the instant disposition is appropriate

Since the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact and that it is bona fide and without negligence, it is not possible to deduct the input tax amount corresponding to the instant tax invoice. The instant disposition that was corrected and notified as value-added tax for the first period of 2008 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.