Cho High 2013Gu1567 ( November 06, 2013)

Whether the Plaintiff engaged in the scrap metal business is a bona fide trading party

In light of the photographs, records of account transfer, certificate of measurement, etc. taken with the customer business operator, even if the tax invoice of this case is false, the plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Guhap20188 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

A bona fide party who has fulfilled his/her duty of care in the course of receiving scrap iron, etc. from each purchaser;

applicable.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false

A) The former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply)

According to the provisions of Article 16 (1) 1 and Article 17 (2) 2, a business that actually supplies.

Article 17 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to a tax invoice if it is different from a supplier.

be supplied as provided for in subparagraph 2 because the necessary entry is different from the facts.

A. The person was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and was not negligent in not knowing that the name was entered.

Unless there are special circumstances, the input tax amount shall not be deducted or refunded, and this subsection shall not apply.

an entity that supplies the goods to the person who forms a nominal legal relationship with the entity that is supplied;

The person who actually conducted transactions of supplying goods or services to the person receiving the supply is deemed to be the person who actually conducted such transactions.

Supreme Court Decision 2014Du5538 Decided August 20, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 96Da38 Decided March 28, 1997

48930, 48947, etc.) On the other hand, it constitutes a false tax invoice.

The burden of proof is the principle that the tax authority bears the burden (Supreme Court Decision 2008Du208 Decided December 11, 2008).

See, 9737, et al.)

(b)the tax invoice received from BB;

Information about the above facts and the statements of evidence Nos. 3, 11, and 17 by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s actual purchase of closed Dong, etc. under the Plaintiff’s above tax invoice:

wife is a third party, not BB, and BB is only a tax invoice for the Plaintiff in its name.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is a disguised transaction that issued and received from BB.

The tax invoice constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact that the supplier’s entry constitutes the Plaintiff’s tax invoice.

Part of the argument is without merit.

1. BB, on March 1, 2010, the place of business of the Gu-U.S. O-7, the place of business of which has been started.

The representative of metal wholesale and retail company is PB, which is approximately KRW 7.3 billion for sales from January 1, 2012 to March 22, 2012;

The amount of purchase was about KRW 1.6 billion, and the sales and purchase amount for the preceding year sharply increased rapidly.

② As a result of the Defendant’s investigation, most purchasers were identified as material and at the time of the investigation.

The details of purchase and sale submitted have occurred without purchase, and issuance, etc. of tax invoices before sale.

The circumstances that cannot be seen in normal commercial transactions were discovered.

(3) PriorB and BB shall aggregate of the total tax invoice by customer and sales invoice by customer.

Violation of the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment, etc. (False Taxation) by stating and submitting a false list

A judgment of conviction on December 26, 2014 (Tgu District Court 2014 GohapO) charged for a crime, etc. (delivery, etc.)

(BB: 4 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment and fine of 2.24 billion won, fine of 2B KRW 100 million for 3 years

The case is pending in the appellate court (Tgu High Court 2015NoO) at the present.

is the same.

(c)tax invoices received from EE resources, FF resources;

The facts of the above recognition and the statements and images of the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 14, 15, 21, 22

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s above tax invoice

The actual purchaser of waste Dongs, etc. is a third party, not EE resources and FF resources, and EE resources and FF

resources are the so-called disguised trader that only issues tax invoices to the Plaintiff in its name.

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is subject to taxes received from EE resources and FF resources. Therefore, taxes that the Plaintiff received from EE resources and FF resources

The invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier’s entry constitutes a tax invoice, which is part of this part.

There is no reason for the funeral.

(1) On February 20, 201, EE resources were started by having a place of business in O-O-O in Busan-si on February 20, 201

After that, the sales of approximately KRW 15.3 billion was reported for about six months from July 1, 201 to December 31, 201.

The value-added tax was not paid.

(2) The representative of the EE resources and KimE shall have no business experience or work experience in the non-ferrous-related business.

No property is available, so-called the branch office was confirmed.

(3) The KimE shall not be actually performed under the direction of the actual operator of the EE resource, OO, etc.

EEE (EE) even if the secondhand goods are sold to customers through a certain distribution stage;

bank that has issued a tax invoice under the name of the principal to the customer and has been remitted to the business account under its name.

Aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which states that the entire amount of the gold was paid in cash to OO, etc.

A suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for two years on July 10, 2014 after being prosecuted for a violation of the Act (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.)

3 years and fines of KRW 1.6 billion (Seoul District Court Branch 2014 GohapO) and appeal

However, on January 28, 2015, the dismissal judgment (Tgu High Court 2014NoO) was sentenced.

4. The FF resources are opened with places of business in Busan-si, Busan-si O-O-1 on June 20, 201.

The sales amount of approximately KRW 11.7 billion without purchase data for six months from June 20, 201 to December 31, 201.

(2) The value-added tax was not paid even after the return.

(5) The representative of the FF resources reaches that the FF has no business experience or income related to scrap metal.

F. He was confirmed as the branch office.

6. The FF is in fact subject to the direction of the actual operator, with a certain amount of bits of historical relics.

A tax invoice in the name of FF resources, even though the waste gul, etc. is sold to the customer through the transit phase.

violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Calculation of False Tax Revenue).

The sentence of imprisonment on May 29, 2014 and the sentence of a fine of KRW 1.2 billion for three years of suspension of execution and a year of imprisonment on May 29, 2014.

Gohap(Tgu District Court Seog District Court 2014 GohapO), its appeal and appeal, however, dismissed

The Supreme Court Decision (Seoul High Court 2014NoO) and the Judgment of Dismissal of Appeal (Supreme Court 2014 DoOO) are each pronounced.

was made.

C) a tax invoice received from CCC metal

Information about the above facts and the statements of evidence Nos. 4, 19, and 26 by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s actual purchase of closed Dong, etc. under the Plaintiff’s above tax invoice:

wife is a third party, not CCC metal, and CCC metal is merely a tax invoice for the Plaintiff in its name.

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is a so-called disguised trader that only issued the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is a CCC fee.

The tax invoice received from the supplier shall constitute a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier's entry is false.

Ro, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

1. The CCC metal is opened and operated on July 10, 2010 at the place of business in Daegu Northern-gu O-1, O-1.

On August 23, 2010, where two months have not elapsed since the end, immediately closed the business.

2. The purchase amount reported to the competent tax office on the transaction for the above-term period by the CCC metal

1.970 million won, sales amount of KRW 2.6771 billion, purchase tax invoices from customers;

There is no details of issuance.

(3) The representative of the CCC metal and KimCC shall have worked for the same business type and business type.

There is no sufficient and sufficient property, and therefore, it is not capable of operating the scrap metal business on the above scale.

He seems to be the person.

(4) The KimCC shall pay the sales price deposited by the seller, such as the Plaintiff, in cash on the day.

(No. 26). The number of business entities operating the business normally deposited in the transaction account.

It is difficult to understand that all deposits are withdrawn in cash on the day.

(5) NaO operating a same kind of enterprise near the location of the CCC metal business establishment shall be CCC metal.

In this regard, it was stated that the closed air transport vehicle was not frequently seen.

6. On the other hand, KimCC's failure on the ground of lack of evidence against the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act

It is recognized that a disposition was issued, but there is sufficient evidence to prove the facts of the offense against KimCC.

It is nothing more than that it is, and it is the same as the final and conclusive criminal judgment on the prosecution's non-guilty decision.

No value of evidence shall be granted, and administrative trials shall be bound by the fact of non-prosecution disposition.

the court may acknowledge the facts opposed to the free evaluation by evidence.

Supreme Court Decision 95Da21884 delivered on December 26, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu493 delivered on October 26, 1987

AA

O Head of tax office

January 14, 2015

February 4, 2015

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 52,50,030 on January 3, 2013 against the Plaintiff, KRW 38,771,856 on the first-year value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 227,192,830 on the second-year value-added tax for the year 201, and imposition of KRW 9,902, KRW 310 on the global income tax for the year 2010 on the January 8, 2013, and imposition of KRW 26,653,370 on the global income tax for the year 2011 shall be revoked, respectively.

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

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) as a business operator operating a wholesale and retail business in the O-O-O of the Gyeongdong-si, Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-gun, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 2,631,149,00 in the aggregate of supply price from the O-O-O of the Gyeongdong-gun; (b) on January 1, 2010 to December 31, 201, the BB (hereinafter referred to as “B”); (c) CCC metal (hereinafter referred to as “K”); (d) KRM (ED); (e) D metal (EE), EE (EF (E) and FF resources (FF (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above purchase places”); and (d) reported, notified, or paid value-added tax to the Defendant after deducting the purchase tax invoice from the output tax amount (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above purchase places”); and (e) each of the above tax invoices are referred to as “each of the above tax invoices”).

B. On June 28, 2012 to November 12, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the result of the investigation on the data of each of the instant purchasing agencies, conducted an individual integrated investigation on the Plaintiff’s data, and subsequently, deducted each of the instant input tax amounts on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices is a tax invoice different from the fact. On January 3, 2013, the Defendant filed a request for a judgment against the Plaintiff by dismissing the request for a judgment with each of the following: (a) value-added tax of KRW 52,50,030, value-added tax of KRW 183,95,920, value-added tax of KRW 227,192,830, value-added tax of KRW 227,192,830, value-added tax of KRW 25,930,570, global income tax of KRW 2653,370, Mar. 25, 2013; (b) the Plaintiff appealed.

D. Meanwhile, in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period portion (U.S. District Court 2013GuhapO) filed by KK against the head of the OO in 2010, the judgment of claimant was rendered on the grounds that KK cannot be deemed to have issued a tax invoice without a transaction of goods, and that it cannot be deemed to have issued a tax invoice on February 13, 2014, and on the 25th of the same month, the said judgment became final and conclusive, the head of the OO confirmed the transaction between the Plaintiff and KK as a normal transaction, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

E. Accordingly, on April 7, 2014 and the 111th of the same month, the Defendant corrected the amount of the second-year value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax for the year 2010 to the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The burden of proving that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a "tax invoice different from the facts" under Article 17 (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act is borne by the tax authority. Thus, the defendant must prove that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice. The plaintiff directly visited each of the purchase places of business of this case to verify the location of the place of business, business registration certificate, name name of the representative, identification card, and copy of the passbook for seal imprint (the name of the representative), confirm all of the transaction after confirming whether the representative is working at the actual place of business. Thus, each of the

2) Even if the transaction partner's name was proved to be a business operator in the name of the trader, the plaintiff visited the trader in advance to check the identity card and the business registration certificate. After confirming the goods at the business place of the trader, the plaintiff was requested to obtain documents such as a certificate of personal seal impression, resident registration certificate, etc. prior to the transaction, and the delivery contract was made to prove the evidence of transaction, and the plaintiff was made to have a camera installed in the counter in the counter in order to secure the evidence related to the purchase of goods so that the number plate of the transport vehicle was displayed. In addition, in the case of the transaction of the transaction of the vehicle with the transportation fee, the plaintiff was taken from the driver on the counter in order to secure the evidence related to the purchase of the goods, the plaintiff received the driver's name, vehicle number, resident registration number, and cell phone number from the driver on the counter in order to obtain the transportation fee, the plaintiff was charged with the transportation fee to the account of the driver on the expressway, and the plaintiff was charged with the tax invoice in relation to the transaction of the vehicle.

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

(D) a tax invoice received from DD metal;

The facts of the above recognition and each entry of the evidence of Nos. 5, 13, 20, 27 (including each number), as a whole;

In light of the following circumstances revealed in light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s above tax invoice

The actual purchaser of the waste Dong, etc. is a third party, not DD metal, and DD metal is only in its name.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is a disguised trader who issued only tax invoices to the Plaintiff.

Tax invoices received by the Plaintiff from DD metal shall be calculated on a different basis from the fact that the supplier's entry is false.

As such, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

1. DD metal begins with a place of business located in Daegu Northern-dong 287-1 on August 13, 2010.

On December 31, 2010, after the end (the location of the CCC metal and the place of business is the same).

was engaged in business.

2. Sales amount reported to the competent tax office on transactions of DD metals for the above period.

While approximately KRW 19.8 billion, there was no report on purchase amount.

3. The representative of DDR and KimD shall have worked in the same business type and business type.

A situation in which there is no financial ability and sufficient property, and where normal living is difficult due to alcohol addiction;

As above, it seems that there is no ability to operate a large-scale scrap metal business.

4. The actual operator of DD metal: HH is a non-ferrous metal paint with the trade name of “H resources.”

Stick goods, which are registered business operators, abuse the practices of paperless transactions in the high water industry while engaging in the business.

HH resources even after purchasing a large quantity of non-ferrous metal from them and supplying them to the seller;

The immediately after a tax invoice is prepared and the sales payment is received as if it was supplied to the direct seller.

Value-added tax shall be levied upon the closure of H resources after full withdrawal in cash and concealment of purchase transactions.

'Recrimination' is a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and three years of imprisonment.

The decision of KRW 3.6 billion was rendered (Seoul District Court Branch 2012 GohapO) and the appeal was filed.

Although the appeal was filed, the judgment dismissing the appeal (Tgu High Court 2012O) and the judgment dismissing the appeal (Supreme Court 2012O)

2012 Doz. (O) was sentenced respectively.

(5) KimD shall pay the sales price deposited by the seller, such as the plaintiff, in full on the day of payment.

The withdrawal has been made by the business entity operating the business normally and at all times the revenue deposited in the transaction account.

It is difficult to understand that the full withdrawal on the day is made in cash.

6. Meanwhile, evidence against the charge of violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) by KimD

The fact that he was found to have received the disposition of non-prosecution on the ground of his incompetence, but only KimD.

evidence to prove the facts constituting the offense is insufficient, and the court is not a court by evidence.

A free evaluation certificate may be recognized as an opposing fact.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

(A) a person who is supplied with another tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice.

The name of a tax invoice was not known, and the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing such fact.

Unless there are special circumstances, no person who is entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount and who is supplied with it shall be entitled to such tax

The input tax amount is deducted in the absence of negligence due to the failure to know the above facts.

A person who asserts a refund must prove it (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277 Decided June 28, 2002).

(i) The details of the issuance and issuance of the tax invoice; and (ii) whether the goods or services are supplied;

specific routes and processes for which the goods or services in question are supplied, and the recipient thereof shall be entitled to such supply in his name.

Comprehensive circumstances such as whether the location of a person's place of business or business facilities has been confirmed;

who is the actual supplier, and the supplier under the tax invoice is not a nominal supplier.

A case where it is impossible to readily conclude that there is a sufficient reason to suspect whether a beneficiary was a one.

If the beneficiary was negligent in not knowing the actual supplier’s name, the beneficiary may be deemed to have been negligent.

It is difficult (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du6527 decided July 25, 2013).

On the other hand, for waste resources such as waste Dong, the supply of the relevant goods due to their distribution structure and transactions;

that person has the duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business;

As such, the data to determine whether the other party is a qualified person for the transaction are available.

(1) In the light of the facts revealed in the course of collection, the other party is suspected to be a disguised business;

negligence in the absence of such knowledge that the other party is a disguised business operator, even if there are reasonable circumstances.

It can be said that there is an objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30, 1997).

B) Domins, the above facts and relevant laws and regulations, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 40, 42 to 45, Eul

Each statement and image of evidence 3 to 5, 18 (including each number), and witness O testimony

In light of the following circumstances, each of the instant cases is known in light of the overall purport of the pleadings:

The purchasing entity is merely a disguised business entity and the entity that actually supplies scrap iron, etc. to the plaintiff is separate.

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there are sufficient circumstances to suspect the existence of the Plaintiff.

Transactions of scrap iron, etc. by each tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "each transaction of this case") is a disguised transaction.

In short, the Plaintiff did not know the facts and did not know such circumstances, and the Plaintiff was negligent in finding such circumstances.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is justified.

① The Plaintiff’s place of business as follows at the time of commencing the transaction with each of the instant purchasing agencies (which shall be:

A copy of the business registration certificate, the name of the representative, and a copy of the business registration certificate, etc., shall be confirmed by visiting the site directly.

Upon receipt of copies, it was confirmed whether the other party to the transaction is the representative of the transaction partner.

○ Transaction with BB: The Plaintiff’s name from BB’s representative prior to BB (A No. 38)

Certificate 1-1), a copy of identification card (No. 38-2), and a copy of the business registration certificate (No. 38-3) shall be delivered.

(B) directly visits the BB’s workplace and confirms that the scrap metal, etc. is located in part.

The business of BB was taken to photograph the entrance of the place of business to keep evidence (No. 38-4).

The head of the Gu had approximately 600 to 700 square meters in a state where the measurement team and the string have been kept (No. 3).

○ Transactions with EE Resources: The Plaintiff’s name from the representative Kim E-E of the EE Resources (A)

28-1), a certificate of personal seal impression (No. 28-8 of the A), and a copy of the identification card (No. 28 of the A)

9) A copy of the business registration certificate (No. 28 of the A), a copy of the resident registration card (No. 28 of the A), a copy of the resident registration card (No. 28 of the A)

(h) confirm the identity of the representative and visit the workplace directly to take photographs of the representative’s personal information;

As of July 10, 201, between Ho Certificate 2 and Kim E-E, the term of contract between July 11, 201 and December 31, 201

The supply contract for scrap scrap (A No. 28-7) was prepared.

○ Transaction with FF Resources: A copy of the business registration certificate (A) by the representative of FF Resources, from the FF

No. 6-1), a certificate of personal seal impression (No. 7-1), and a copy of an identification card (a)

No. 7-2), name cards (Evidence No. 7-3), business operator’s passbook signs (Evidence No. 7-4), resident registration

Upon receipt of a certified copy of the tag (No. 7-5), the representative's personal information shall be verified, and the place of business shall be kept directly.

(A) The photographing was made (No. 10 3 through 7), and the seal imprint and transaction account from the F

A. Upon receipt of a written confirmation of the fact of transaction (Evidence A 4) to be used for the transaction with the Plaintiff, the second

The term of contract between a decoration and a decoration as of October 1, 201 to September 30, 201, the term of contract of which is set at between October 1, 2011 and September 1, 2011

Preparation of a contract for goods(A No. 5) was made.

Trading with CCC metal: Name A from the representative of CCC metal (A)

33-1), copy of identification card (Evidence 33-2), copy of business registration certificate (Evidence 33-3), amnesty

A business operator shall receive a copy of the passbook (No. 33-4) and verify the personal information, etc. of the representative, and the

He directly visited the place of business and taken photographs with KimCC (No. 33-5).

○ Transactions with DD Metal: The Plaintiff’s discovery from the representative KimD of DD metal

A certificate of the personal seal impression (Evidence 22-1), a copy of the identification card (Evidence 22-2), and a copy of the business registration certificate

(A) No. 22-3), and the identity of the representative after receiving a copy of the account book (No. 22-4 of the A)

I confirmed the matters, etc., and visited the workplace directly, and taken photographs with KimD (A)

22 Doz. 5)

② In addition, the Plaintiff traded with each of the instant purchasing agencies, and from the purchasing agencies as follows:

was issued with a tax invoice and a detailed statement of transactions, and prepared a measurement certificate of the goods supplied.

the bank account in the name of the principal of the transaction, and the non-ferrous metal scrap has been deposited.

The evidence submitted by the defendant and the circumstances of its assertion are limited to the issuance of the letter of movement.

D. The Plaintiff actually supplied the scrap metal, etc. to the Plaintiff at the time of each of the instant transactions

No special circumstance may be found to suspect that the purchasing entity is not the purchasing entity.

○ Transaction with BB: The Plaintiff is supplied with scrap metal from BB in the course of being supplied with such scrap metal

Done from May 20, 2010 to June 7, 2010, a measurement certificate (No. 36 No. 1 to 48) was drawn up, and May 25, 2010

and on June 8, 2010, a tax invoice (Evidence A 34-1, 2) and a statement of transactions (Evidence A 35) twice

receipt of certificate 1, 2) and deposit of scrap metal with the account in the name of BB on each of the above dates.

A.(No. 37)

○ Transactions with EE Resources: The Plaintiff is supplied with Adong, etc. from EE Resources.

Tax invoices (Evidence 23 No. 1 through 3 of the Evidence No. 23) and the detailed statement of transactions in Chapter Three (A) on August 4, 201 to August 5, 201

Upon receipt of the evidence Nos. 24(1) through (3), and prepared a measurement certificate (A evidence No. 25(1) through (12).

In addition, the amount of scrap metal was transferred to the account of EE resources (A evidence 27).

○ Transaction with FF Resources: The Plaintiff is supplied with A Dong, etc. from FF Resources.

Tax invoices (Evidence A 1-1-8) and transaction specifications (A-1-8) in Chapter VIII on October 14, 2011 to October 27, 201

No. 2-1 to 8) A certificate of measurement on the goods supplied for the above period of time (A)

Done at No. 3 1 to 27, and transferred the scrap metal to the account of FF resources (A).

8) In addition, the Plaintiff’s correction from the FF due to a change in the place of business of “FF resources” from the FF.

10.A copy of the business registration certificate of 27.27 is delivered by facsimile (No. 6-2, 3) and a driver.

GOOO on October 17, 201, while Essung Group on October 27, 201, respectively, the plaintiff's death at each FF resource establishment of FF resource on October 27, 2011.

In preparation of a letter of confirmation that the operator has moved non-ferrous metal scrap (A) to the place of business (hereinafter referred to as "non-metallic scrap").

No. 9-2, A No. 10-1)

Trading with CCC metal: The Plaintiff is supplied with Adong from CCC metal on August 10, 2010.

(A) A tax invoice (Evidence No. 29) and a statement of transaction (Evidence No. 30 of the A), and a measurement certification

(A) No. 32-1 to 8) was prepared or received, and the amount of scrap metal with the CCC metal account.

The transfer (No. 31) was made.

○ Transactions with DD Metal: The Plaintiff is supplied with A Dong from FF resource on October 6, 2010.

(A) A tax invoice (Evidence No. 18) and a statement of transaction (Evidence No. 19 of the A), and a measurement certification;

Done at Category A (Evidence 20, 39) and transferred the scrap metal to the DD metal account (A)

No. 3.

③ In general, the purpose of using so-called ‘data' or ‘defensor' is to make a false representation.

Tax evasion by means of tax invoices for the deduction of input tax amount of value-added tax;

For this purpose, the plaintiff is the representative of the business partner in full of the transaction price of this case and the value added tax.

paid through a bank account in the name of the bank, and unit price of scrap metal, etc. calculated at the time of each of the instant transactions

In comparison with the transaction unit price or industry standard unit price, etc. of the same enterprise, it is not particularly low.

It appears that the Plaintiff did not appear to have made a disguised transaction with each of the transaction partners of this case.

If value-added tax, etc. was paid with knowledge of the fact, it himself/herself duplicate value-added tax.

In addition, it is not only the risk of bearing but also the fact that it is the case in terms of social norms.

the transaction amount of this case and its added value paid through the bank account in the name of the customer representative.

There is no objective evidence to deem that the amount of the tax was refunded.

④ The Defendant at the time of the initial investigation into the integration of individuals suspected of having been accused of material injury to the Plaintiff KK.

A tax invoice issued by him shall also be deemed to be a false tax invoice, and the plaintiff's preference to the tax invoice.

Although KK was included in taxable objects by judging that it is not deemed that there is no intention or negligence, it later reaches the point of view.

F. As a decision is rendered to the effect that a transaction does not constitute a “data Award,” with respect to the transaction with KK.

Part was excluded from taxable objects. However, in the second taxable period of value added tax in 2010, the Plaintiff was excluded from taxable objects.

- issued nine copies of tax invoices of an amount equivalent to the total value of 801,414,000 won from KK;

This accounts for a significant part of the purchase transaction of the plaintiff.

(5) The defendant, while investigating the sales transaction of the plaintiff, shall set up a tax invoice, details of payment, and fraternity.

As a result of the examination of the transaction evidence, such as the quantity certificate, the transport ice, the entrance and exit photograph, and the expressway traffic certificate, the report;

The actual sales of the same content are confirmed, and the omission of sales or the details of processing sales are found.

No. 18 (No. 18).

6. The Plaintiff did not receive any goods from the purchaser of the instant case

Each tax invoice was issued on suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, but on April 2013.

26. He shall be subjected to a disposition not to institute a public prosecution (No. 42).

(7) The transaction of the closed consent shall be closed at each intermediate wholesaler for the reduction of transportation costs and for the convenience of the transaction.

동을 수집하여 이를 자기의 사업장에 상��하차하지 않고, 직접 폐동을 싣고 가서 원고

In the same place of delivery, the accounts and the receipt of payments and the issuance of tax invoices at the same time

Many of these closed agreements transaction practices, the purpose of the administrative litigation system, and the jurisdiction.

Considering the function of protecting the rights and interests of the public, the plaintiff is a disguised supplier of each purchase of this case.

additional investigations and investigations as to whether or not they are visiting the workplace(s) in addition to the circumstances of living prior to the visit, etc.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff was negligent on the part of the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not confirm

does not mean that they are.

8. Investigation in the report on the completion of investigation into evidence regarding part of each of the purchasers of this case

Where the customer who received the tax invoice from the target company asserts that it is a normal transaction, the good faith;

Determination of facts as to whether the damaged enterprise has been damaged shall be made at the competent tax office before detailed details, etc.

It is stated that it is reasonable to review the case individually (as described in sub-paragraphs 3 through 5).

(m) The Defendant himself is also a supplier of each transaction of this case, but the supplier of each transaction of this case is also a supplier of tax invoice.

In this case, each purchaser of this case's disguised entry is not true.

The mere fact that each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a trader is not true for the plaintiff immediately.

It cannot be viewed that there was a negligence without knowing that it was a tax invoice.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the claims of the plaintiff shall be accepted for the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.