Daejeon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-104727 (2016.06)

Whether it constitutes false tax invoices and ships without fault and whether it is subject to unfair penalty tax

The imposition of value-added tax on the plaintiff is a tax invoice different from the fact, and it does not constitute good faith and negligence, and the imposition of unfair under-reported penalty tax under Article 47-3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is legitimate.

Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 47-3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Nu10853 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Co., Ltd. 000

00. Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap104727 (2016.06)

December 14, 2016

January 18, 2017

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 revoked 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

Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 59,889,160 on December 1, 2011 against Plaintiff for the first time, 2011;

Value-added tax for 2 years 201 737,856,360 won, and value-added tax for 1 year 2012 502,268,225 won

Each disposition is revoked (the plaintiff partially reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant against the plaintiff on December 2, 2013

50,219,215 won in the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 59,889,160 in 201, and the second period in 2011

Value-added tax of KRW 737,856,360,60,615,025,334, and the value-added tax of KRW 1, 2012

502,268,225 won of the imposition of KRW 426,613,183 shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

Paragraph (1) shall apply.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

1) The Plaintiff Company stated the date of disposition as the date of December 6, 2013 in the written complaint’s correction to December 2, 2013, because it is apparent that it is an error or clerical error in December 2, 2013.

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is that "AA and BB" in Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance is "A", "B andCC" in Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance, "B" is "B andCC", "DDD" in Part 10 of the 8th judgment is added to "B and DDD", and Paragraph 2 of the 4th judgment is added to "B and DD", and Paragraph 3 of the 16th to the 19th 19th 10th 10th 19th 19th 19th 10th 16th 19th 19th 19th 10th 19th 16th 19th 19th 16th 19th 19th 10th 20th 20th 20th 20th 20th 20th 3th 20th 20th 3th 3th 20).

2. The addition;

Part 4 Pursuant to Part 3

F. Of the instant disposition on December 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) KRW 514,987,700 of the value-added tax for the first time, 2012;

In the disposition of imposition, the portion of the unfair underreporting on EE-related additional tax shall be changed to the general underreporting additional tax

This paper will apply to the difference, and ex officio revoke 12,719,475 won.

3. The modified part.

16 Revised Parts 19 to 10 pages 19

3) Whether the imposition of an unfair under-reported additional tax is illegal

A) Relevant legal principles

In light of the language, structure, etc. of relevant provisions, such as Article 47-3(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Framework Act on National Taxes”), even if a taxpayer received false certification and under-reported the tax base by receiving false certification, such taxpayer received the tax base.

If proof is not known that it is false, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a case of underreporting the amount of tax payable due to an unlawful act (Article 47-3(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes). A taxpayer did not know that it was false by gross negligence. In addition, in a case where a taxpayer received a tax invoice different from an actual supplier under the relevant tax invoice, and received the deduction or refund of an input tax amount due to an unlawful act under Article 47-3(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, such an act constitutes a case of underreporting the tax base due to an unlawful act under Article 47-3(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the taxpayer should be aware that, other than that of receiving the deduction or refund of an input tax amount based on a false tax invoice, the taxpayer who issued a different tax invoice should report and pay the tax base and amount of tax payable other than the amount of tax paid under the relevant tax invoice, or who received a request for correction after filing a tax return on the entire amount of the amount of tax paid under the relevant tax invoice.

B) Determination

We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the facts and evidence as seen earlier, as well as the written evidence No. 19, the Plaintiff Company knew that at least a supplier’s tax invoice issued by 3i, kk,CC, and DD was a false tax invoice, and that at least a supplier’s tax invoice was a false tax invoice, AAA, etc. or the purchaser would result in a decrease in national tax revenues by evading the liability for value-added tax payment related to the tax invoice. This part of the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is groundless.

2) This part is similar to the case of underreporting the tax base in an unjust manner under Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes prior to the amendment by Act No. 11124, Dec. 31, 2011 (the former provision prior to the amendment can be applicable to the first period correction disposition of 2011 among the dispositions in the instant case); hereinafter referred to as “the case of underreporting the tax base in an unjust manner” and “the case of underreporting the tax base due to an unlawful act under Article 47-3(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes” shall be considered as a provision practically the same purport, and shall be examined based on the latter.

(1) The Plaintiff Company’s employees discussed AA, BB and scrap metal proceeds, volume, etc., and continued to engage in transactions. At all times, the Plaintiff Company was issued a tax invoice under the name of another company.

(2) If the company issuing the tax invoice to the Plaintiff Company closes its business ex officio due to a failure to pay taxes within a short period, the tax invoice has been issued in the name of the same place or another company established in the vicinity.

(3) The National Tax Service discontinued the FF ex officio, in addition to conducting a confirmation investigation on the company GGG, Inc., Ltd., which received the sales tax invoice from the data merchants due to a defect in tax payment, and DGG and DGGS, Inc., Ltd., which received the sales tax invoice from the data merchants. HH was well aware of such fact as both the Plaintiff Company’s employees and DGAS employees.

(4) Even after an scrap metal company whose large-scale transactions are not discontinued discontinued with tax and closes its authority, HH continued to engage in scrap metal transactions with AA and BB.

(5) On the other hand, the Plaintiff Company recognized that the Plaintiff Company’s employee’s transaction with KRk was issued a business registration certificate and a copy of passbook by its representative, and that the Plaintiff Company started the transaction (see, e.g., the Plaintiff’s legal brief on June 10, 2016), and all business experience related to scrap metal.

kk has started the scrap metal business at the request of a tax official in the process of a tax official's examination, and it has been argued that the relevant documents that can prove the fact of the transaction have been retired or lost, and the situation has become unfavorable.

(6) In full view of all the convictions of the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against nn's representative ml and mm (Jansan District Court 2012 highest 9521) that the actual operator of kk and mm was recognized to be lboard, and the actual operator of kk and mm m m m m m m m m m m m m (the total purchase amount of KRW 3.39 billion out of the total purchase amount of KRW 3.4 million m m m 3.39 billion out of the total purchase amount of KRW 3.6 billion) without any specific purchase, it is an enterprise closed after only cause a high sale of 6.2 billion won in a short period of time (six months), and the first place of business of k m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

(7) As seen earlier, after the Plaintiff Company lost from the first instance court (Seoul District Court 2013Guhap2732, Daejeon District Court 2013Guhap2732) of the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the previous disposition, the appeal was dismissed in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Nu11333). In the appellate court, “H” appears to have been actually operated in the range of mp and in the past corporation PP, both of which are worked at the lst and the past

Recognizing that the personal seal was mmm and was mm in trade."

(8) HH needs to secure to the maximum extent the scrap metal volume so that the Plaintiff Company can maintain its status as the old unit company (referring to a large-scale scrap metal company under a contract for supply of steel products with the steel company) in the distribution structure in which the securing of the scrap metal volume directly connected with its profits.

(9) HH directly interferes with the scrap metal business and received a tax invoice in the name of the data-based business entity after being supplied with the scrap metal.

(10) HH appears to have been aware of the structure, etc. of tax evasion occurring in the process of the distribution structure or distribution of scrap iron as a person in charge of the purchase of scrap iron by the Plaintiff Company.

(11) HH was mainly interested in the high steel transactions with AA, etc., and it seems that there was no interest in the actual operator of the company issuing the tax invoice, such as DDD, and whether the company actually operated or operated.

(12) On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an administrative suit against the director of the Oro Tax Office seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax on the basis of facts similar to the instant case (00 district court 2014Guhap20736) and the appellate court (00 high court 2015Nu20244). This part of the issues and the issues of this case

The plaintiff company's assertion that "the same portion of unfair underreporting is illegal" is rejected.

The Plaintiff Company’s appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the Plaintiff Company’s appeal is also dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2016.12.

15. The judgment of the first instance court against the Plaintiff was final and conclusive.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the claim of this case that the plaintiff company reduced in the trial shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in some different conclusions, so the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance which was brought in the defendant's appeal shall be revoked and the claim of the plaintiff company corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the appeal of the plaintiff company shall