beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 372,683,190 against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015, 310,984.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established on May 22, 2009 and engaged in the wholesale and retail and scrap metal processing business, etc. of steel products, and the Plaintiff constitutes so-called “old field company,” which purchased scrap metal, etc. and supplies them to Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern iron”).
B. From July 2012 to August 2012, the Plaintiff received scrap metal from A’s representative B, and received six copies of tax invoices of KRW 1,103,921,250 in total, and received scrap metal from the head office of a stock company C (hereinafter “C”) on September 2012; three copies of tax invoices of KRW 109,650,380 in total; from October 2012 to December 2012, the Plaintiff provided KRW 843,06,890 in total, and received 40 tax invoices of KRW 2,056,638,520 in total, from the output tax amount; and filed a return on value-added tax for the second period of December 2012 after deducting the amount of tax invoices of KRW 2,056,638,520 in total from the output tax amount.
C. In addition, during the business year 2011 and the business year 2012, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) under the name of eight companies, including D, as follows. Based on this, the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax for the business year 201 and 2012 by including the purchase price for scrap metal in deductible expenses.
The amount (value of supply, unit: won) to be received for the year to which the status of the purchaser is reverted, the representative of the EF for the business year 1,135,58,440 DG 8,103,672,95 H 2012 business year 2,537,105,00 JK 201 business year 1,255,319,60 J 2012 business year 403,319,930 L M M 1,094,285,000 NO 2011 business year 2,067,093,090 A B B 2,527,903,203,200 for the business year to which the status of the purchaser is reverted,527,2707,250 C
D. As a result of conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff from November 17, 2014 to December 26, 2014, the Defendant determined that the tax invoice received from the head office and branch offices A constituted a false tax invoice. The Plaintiff was supplied goods or services from the business entity during the business year of 2011 and the business year of 2012.