Additional-2014-0185 (Law No. 16, 2015)

Unless the actual supplier and the actual supplier are confirmed to be different, the actual supplier and the actual supplier are the plaintiff's negligence and the actual tax invoice cannot be deducted from the input tax amount.

Unless the actual supplier and the actual supplier are confirmed to be different, the actual supplier and the actual supplier are the plaintiff's negligence and the actual tax invoice cannot be deducted from the input tax amount.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Guhap6712 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

aa

O Head of tax office

November 5, 2015

December 24, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014, of KRW 1,050,580 for the first term of 2010, KRW 1,019,360 for the second term of 2010, KRW 976,890 for the second term of 201, KRW 1,020,570 for the second term of 201, KRW 620,090 for the first term of 2012, and KRW 367,390 for the second term of 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 20, 2005 to November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who closes down his/her business in the name of “AAAAAAAAA” in the O OOOOOOOO from January 20, 2005 to his/her business.

B. During the value-added tax period from the first to the second period from 2010 in 2012, the Plaintiff received 30 copies of the purchase tax invoice issued by a supplier from Nonparty bB as a limited companyCC (hereinafter “CC”) and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. However, as a result of the tracking investigation of the distribution process of alcoholic beverages conducted by the director of the regional tax office, it was revealed that the business operator who supplied alcoholic beverages, etc. to the Plaintiff was notCC, but BBB. The Defendant issued the instant tax invoice on July 15, 2014, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was “tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier and the actual supplier entered differently”, respectively, and issued the Plaintiff a corrective notice of KRW 1,050,580 on July 15, 2014, value-added tax amounting to KRW 1,019,360 on February 2, 2010, KRW 976,890 on January 2, 2011, KRW 1,020,570 on February 2, 2011, KRW 620,090 on January 20, 2012, and KRW 367,390 on February 2, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 10, 2014 on September 1, 2014, but was dismissed on March 16, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 6, before pleadings

The purpose of body

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased alcoholic beverages, etc. on the instant tax invoice in the arm’s length price and paid in full the price including value-added tax, and did not know that there was no additional benefit, and that there was no difference between the supplier on the tax invoice issued by leap disease and the actual supplier. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition on this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

The actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances, such as that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in not knowing the nominal name (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du20618, Dec. 11, 2014). However, in full view of the purport of the pleading in the statement in subparagraph 4, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the supplier was a personal entrepreneur who uses the trade name “BBBB”, and the relevant statement of transaction was also indicated as “BBBB” by the supplier. Thus, the Plaintiff did not obtain the tax invoice in this case because the Plaintiff did not go through the minimum procedure of verification as to whether the supplier under the tax invoice in this case was the same as the actual supplier, and thus, constitutes negligence of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot deduct the pertinent input tax amount, and the instant disposition is lawful on the same premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.