The tax invoice of this case shall be classified as if the entries are different from the facts.

AAmera reported by the company that purchased the AAmera Dong has no experience in connection with the AAmera business and did not hold a basic facility shop, and it is difficult to view that the AAmera purchased the AAmera from the above company as being in a financial transaction form immediately after the payment of the sales price to the above companies. It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff supplied the AAmera to the extent that the company did not purchase the waste club from the above company

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Guhap8926 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

KimA

Head of Mapo Tax Office

November 6, 2015

December 4, 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 amounting to KRW 30,698,080, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2013, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 30, 2011, the Plaintiff from AAmera Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AAmera”)

The value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice of this case") was received from the purchase and purchase tax invoice (the supply price of 212,018,000 won) and the purchase tax invoice (the supply price of this case; hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice of this case") was deducted as the input tax amount for the second period of 201.

B. The Defendant, deeming the instant transaction as a disguised transaction, on June 1, 2013, deemed the Plaintiff to be the second period of February 2011.

Value-added tax was imposed in KRW 30,698,086 (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition").

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on July 4, 2013, but was dismissed. The Tax Tribunal on October 31, 2013

The appeal was filed but dismissed on March 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff actually purchased rap from AAAmera and issued the instant tax invoice, and thus, the instant transaction does not constitute a disguised transaction.

2) Even if the instant transaction was a disguised transaction, the Plaintiff was unaware of the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier of the instant tax invoice, and was not negligent in not knowing such difference.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

According to the following facts and circumstances, the evidence Nos. 2 and 2 and 4, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleading, is difficult to deem that the instant transaction had been actually conducted.

A tax invoice shall be included in cases where its entries are different from facts.

A) The Plaintiff is engaged in wholesale business and goods brokerage business under the trade name called d 2BB.

B) AAmera filed a value-added tax return from 2011 to 2012 as follows:

However, the reported company that purchased AAmeral Dong did not operate or own a basic facility for the closed-dong business by a person who has no experience in the operation of the closed-dong business, and it was difficult for the company to engage in the closed-dong wholesale business in light of the financial situation. In addition, when the sales proceeds are deposited to the above companies, it shows a very exceptional financial form, such as making the full withdrawal in cash immediately after the deposit. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that AAmeral purchased the closed-dong from the above companies, and it is also difficult to view that the Plaintiff supplied the closed-dong to the extent that it did not purchase the closed-dong from

다) 비록 AAAA메탈의 대표 김ㅇㅇ이 위와 같은 위장거래와 관련하여 특정범죄가중처벌에관한법률위반(조세)위반의 점에 대하여 증거불충분으로 불기소처분을 받은 사실은 인정되나 이는 김ㅇㅇ에 대한 범죄사실을 인정할 증거가 충분하지 않다는 것에 불과하고, 행정재판이 그 불기소처분사실에 구속받는 것도 아니다(대법원 1995.12. 26. 선고 95다21884 판결 참조). 앞서 본 바와 같이 AAAA메탈이 폐동을 매입하거나 매출하였다고 볼 수 없으므로 이 사건 세금계산서는 사실과 다른 세금계산서에해당한다.

2) Whether there was any good faith or negligence on a false tax invoice

A Evidence Nos. 2, 4, 2, and 4 may be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleading to each entry of Evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 4

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff is eligible for a transaction by AAmer.

of this case or whether the tax invoice of this case has been falsely prepared

Since the tax invoice did not verify the fact that there was a partial circumstance, the tax invoice is different from the fact.

In the absence of the knowledge that the entry was made, it is difficult to deem that there was no negligence, and otherwise,

There is no evidence to prove this.

A) The Plaintiff continued to work in the same industry from 2005 to 2009, and January 1, 2010

After the opening of the drBB, there shall be no difference between the trader and the trader, and after the opening of the drupb B, the yeast or booby.

Upon receipt of a request for import cancellation, the Korean government purchased the Aluminium or alinium from the domestic company and conducted the business in the way of selling it to the domestic company.

B) The Plaintiff sold the scrap scrap purchased from AAAmer to Dong-Nam. The Plaintiff purchased the same scrap from AAAmer, without being kept by the Plaintiff, and then supplied it to Dong-Nam immediately after purchasing it verbally from AAAmers. The Plaintiff also stated that the goods purchased from the AAmers are owned by AAAmers or owned by another company. In light of the Plaintiff’s industrial employees period, etc., the Plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the supply structure and distribution channel of the goods, the general form or method of transaction in the relevant industry, the actual condition of transaction in data, and the risk of transaction.

C) Nevertheless, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff conducted a field investigation, such as having directly visited and confirmed the scene of AAAmer, or having received on-site pictures, etc. The Plaintiff confirmed whether the representative and the actual representative are in accord with the business registration certificate, but the business registration certificate is merely a certificate verifying the business fact, and does not recognize that the Plaintiff was in conformity with the qualification or requirements for operating the business. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent on the ground that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the instant tax invoice was written differently

3. Conclusion

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