Cheongju District Court-2012-Gu Partnership-1230 ( August 29, 2013)

If the transaction is to receive a tax invoice different from the fact, the plaintiff's good faith and without fault is recognized.

(1) The Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault that the supplier received tax invoices different from the fact is recognized in light of the following: (a) at the time of the commencement of the transaction, the customer has made considerable efforts to verify whether the customer is normally engaged in closed-end trading business; (b) the customer has made a normal deposit in the passbook in the name of the customer; and (c) there is no data to presume that the unit price of the closed-end agreement is considerably low.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu568 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Co.***M

Head of Chungcheong Tax Office

Cheongju District Court 2012Guhap1230, 2013

January 14, 2015

January 28, 2015

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,512,083,90 on December 1, 201 against the Plaintiff and KRW 18,109,91,140 on the second year value-added tax on December 1, 2009 and KRW 18,756,891,140 on July 1, 2012, and KRW 18,756,891,380 on the first year value-added tax on July 1, 2012 and KRW 18,756,891,380 on the first year of 2011 shall be revoked.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The same is as the order (the plaintiff extended the purport of the claim as stated in the order through the application for modification of the purport of the claim made on March 17, 2014).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff was established for the purpose of the same refining business on October 17, 2008 (the location of the headquarters at the time of its establishment was 'O' 450-2' 'O' 'O' 'O' 'O' 'O' 'O' 'O' 'O' 650-3 as of December 208, 209 'O' 'O' 'O' 'O' 'O' 's 'O' 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' 's '' '' after the completion of the construction of a new factory on June 22, 2009 ' 's 's 's 's '' '' '' '' '' '' '', and 'the 201' '' '' ''201' '' ' ' 'the ' ' '001') '.

(unit: million won)

Gu Sector

2, 2009

1, 2010

2010

1, 2011

Total

KimCC (DG)

OOO

OOO

Limited Company EE

OOO

OOO

The FF (GGG tea)

OOO

OOO

OOO

HaH (II Resources)

OOO

OOO

JJ Co., Ltd.

OOO

OOO

Park K K (Lmers)

OOO

OOO

OOO

RM (NM)

OOO

OOO

OOO

PP metal Co., Ltd.

OOO

OOO

김QQ(RR메탈)

OOO

OOO

SS Corporation

OOO

OOO

TT Metal Co., Ltd.

OOO

OOO

UUmers Co., Ltd.

OOO

OOO

VM Co., Ltd.

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

C. However, from June 14, 201 to November 18, 2011, the director of the regional tax office, upon conducting a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and all of the instant tax invoices delivered by the Plaintiff from each of the instant transaction parties by data merchants, deemed that all of the instant tax invoices were false and mistakenly entered by the supplier, and notified the Defendant, accordingly, the Defendant denied the input tax deduction for all of the instant tax invoices on the ground that they are false tax invoices, and notified the Plaintiff of each of the revised disposition (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3, and Eul evidence 1 through 4 (in case of family number, including branch number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Since the Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit seeking revocation of the dispositions of this case Nos. 2 and 3, the part seeking revocation of the disposition of this case Nos. 2 and 3 is unlawful as a duplicate lawsuit.

B. Determination

1) In relation to the prohibition of double lawsuit, the prior suit and the subsequent suit are classified by the time when the lawsuit is pending, and the time when the complaint is served on the defendant. On the other hand, if the prior suit was filed with respect to the same case, even if the prior suit lacks the requirements for the lawsuit and thus the requirements for the lawsuit are inappropriate, the subsequent suit violates the prohibition of double lawsuit, but the prior suit does not constitute a more overlapping lawsuit when the prior suit is extinguished due to the withdrawal or dismissal of the prior suit until the closing of argument in the subsequent suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45532, Feb. 27, 1998).

In addition, in a case where an increase or decrease is made after a tax disposition has been made, the original disposition is not to determine the tax base and tax amount in the original disposition, but to determine a single tax base and tax amount as a whole by including only the portion exceeding the tax base and tax amount in the original disposition, as it is incorporated into the original disposition for the increase or decrease, and thus, the original disposition is naturally extinguished as a matter of course, and only that disposition for the increase or decrease is subject to appeal litigation, and it is also identical in a case where the difference with the original decision is additionally notified at the time of the increase or decrease (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201

2) According to the Defendant’s dispositions of this case Nos. 2 and 3, both the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2010 and the first period of 2011 among the dispositions of this case were added to the part corresponding to the disposition of this case No. 3. However, in full view of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 29, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation against the Defendant on or around February 8, 2013 regarding the instant disposition No. 2. Thus, the Plaintiff’s imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2010 among the lawsuit of this case constitutes ① and ② the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2010 and the first period of 2011.

3) However, according to the evidence, the plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment on August 29, 2013 in the lawsuit mentioned in the above paragraph (1) and appealed by the defendant, and the appellate court rendered a dismissal judgment around December 17, 2014. The above appellate court judgment became final and conclusive as of the date of closing of argument in this case, and the date the plaintiff's application for modification of the purport of the claim was served on March 17, 2014 is around March 20, 2014. On the other hand, the date when the plaintiff's written complaint was served on the defendant in the lawsuit mentioned in the above paragraph (2) was served on March 27, 2014. Thus, the lawsuit mentioned in the above paragraph (1) was terminated as of the date of closing of argument in this case, and the lawsuit mentioned in the above paragraph (2) falls under the previous lawsuit in this case, and eventually, the lawsuit in this case constitutes the previous lawsuit, and thus, the defendant's defense against each of the above paragraphs (1) and (2).

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, as indicated in each of the instant tax invoices, was actually supplied by each of the instant transaction parties, and each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute private tax invoices different from private tax invoices.

2) Even if each of the transaction parties in this case’s tax invoices constituted false tax invoices, the plaintiff confirmed that each of the transaction parties in this case’s transaction with each of the transaction parties in this case was actually engaged in closed-end trading business through visit to the place of business, verification of business registration certificate, etc., and even in the process of being supplied with closed-dong, it was confirmed that each of the transaction parties in this case was actually supplied by each of the transaction parties in this case through strict examination procedure, and stored transport vehicle photographs, measurement certificate tax invoice invoice, etc. along with evidentiary documents, and accurately remitted transaction fees to the account opened in the name of each of the transaction parties in this case. The plaintiff did not know that each of the transaction parties in this case was not a actual supplier, and there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) In the refining industry using waste Dongs as its raw material, three companies, including Wtec (Establishment in November 9, 2006, and OOOOO sales in 201), WM metal industry corporation (Establishment in July 4, 2006, and approximately KRW OOO sales in 2011), and Plaintiff (Establishment in October 17, 2008, and approximately KRW OOO sales in 201) are higher in sales.

2) At present, 47% out of the total number of the Plaintiff’s issued stocks, YY, and 3% are owned by each individual, who is a corporation listed on the KOSDAQ market, ZZ Co., Ltd. (YY affiliate company), ZZ Co., Ltd. (YY affiliate company), and 50% of the machine.

3) One of the co-representatives of the Plaintiff’s joint representative director and Maximumbb, etc., the purchasing director of the Plaintiff, were previously operated at the same time by cCC, dd Co., Ltd., and ee Co., Ltd., the closed wholesale chain, and e Co., Ltd., on the ground that the above companies received false tax invoices, they have the record of being accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act around April 2009.

4) From the 2009 Value-Added Tax period to the 1st Value-Added Tax period in 201, the transaction partner who the Plaintiff purchased the closed Dong was accused of approximately 30 including each of the instant transaction partners, and all of the data, etc.

5) OO지방국세청장은 2011. 6. 14.부터 2011. 11. 18.까지 원고에 대하여 세무 조사를 실시한 결과，원고가 자료상인 이 사건 각 거래처로부터 공급자가 허위로 기재된 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 교부받은 후 그에 따른 매입세액을 부당하게 공제받아 약 OOOO원 상당의 부가가치세를 포탈하였다는 이유로， 원고 및 원고의 공동대표이사인 오ff，안aa，원고의 구매부장인 최bb을 조세범처벌법위반 등 혐의로 청주지방검찰청 충주 지청에 고발하였는데， 청주지방검찰청 충주지청 검사 박gg은 2012. 7. 31. 이 사건 각 거래처 중 6개 업체[김CC(DD금속)， 유한회사 EEE， 안FF(GG자원)， 채HH (II자원)， 주식회사JJJ，권MM(NN금속)]와 관련된 부분은 원고 등이 위 6개 업체의 대표자들과 공모하여 가공 거래를 한 후 부가가치세를 포탈하였다고 인정할 증거가 없다는 이유로 혐의없음(증거불충분) 처분을 하였고，7개 업체[박KK(LL메탈)， 주식회사 PP금속， 김QQ(RR메탈)， 주식회사 TT금속， 주식회사 SSS， 주식회사 UU메탈， VV금속 주식회사]와 관련된 부분은 위 7개 업체의 대표자들이 소재불명이라는 이유로 참고인중지 처분을 하였다.

6) All circumstances or material facts pertaining to the instant transaction and transaction with the Plaintiff are as follows.

A) KimCC (DM)

(1) On February 1, 2009, KimCC opened a wholesale and retail business of scrap metal in the name of OO-dong OO-dong 491-271 at OO-si, and closed its business around January 29, 2010. However, KimCC operated a same kind of company by opening ‘D metal' from around 2004 to July 25, 2008 at the same place as the place of business of 'D metal', employed by the head of leap, and engaged in the business of collecting and selling waste Dongs from around 200 to the head of leap ii in the name of the head of leap.

(2) Around July 2009, KimCC offered the Plaintiff with a closed transit transaction, and on July 22, 2009, the Plaintiff’s purchase bb visited the business place of KimCC (DD metal) and confirmed the facilities, such as the open straw, the connected straw, and the straw straw, etc., for the closed operation transaction, photographs were taken, and a copy of a passbook in the name of KimCC (DD metal) of KimCC (Issuance on May 25, 2009).

(3) On August 11, 2009, from around September 3, 2009 to around September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff took over a closed-dong that KimCC (DM) is a supplier, received eight tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value from KimCC (DDM). At the time of taking over the closed-dong, the Plaintiff traded a transport vehicle in which the closed-dong is loaded, and took up the closed-dong, and indicated its measurement certificate (the date, vehicle number, supplier, name, weight, etc. are printed, and the transport engineer’s name and cell phone number are printed, and the cell phone number is number can be numbered) by facsimile, and then sent a corresponding tax invoice and transaction statement from KimCC (DM) by facsimile (the original was received by mail after two to three days). The value of supply was transferred to the account in the name of KimCC (DMM).

(4) In 2009, KimCC (DM) reported sales amount as OOO won in the taxable period of value-added tax, and the purchase amount as OOO won in the taxable period of value-added tax, and paid only the OO won in the value-added tax. The above sales office includes not only the Plaintiff (the total supply value) but also WWte Co., Ltd (the total supply value is equivalent to OOO won) and MM metal industry Co., Ltd. (the total supply value is equivalent to OOO won).

(5) On the other hand, KimCC (DM) has collected in cash immediately in full the amount transferred from the seller including the Plaintiff, and there is no documentary evidence as to the place of use.

(6) On April 2010, the director of the regional tax office has conducted an investigation (the period subject to investigation: the period from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009) related to the transaction order with respect to KimCC (DD metal). On the other hand, the director of the regional tax office determined that the total amount of supply value among the tax invoices received by KimCC (DD metal) was a sales tax invoice (98.6%) equivalent to the total amount of supply value, the purchase tax invoice (98.6%) equivalent to the total amount of purchase value, and the purchase tax invoice (97.1% and j (k) among the purchasing places, and the maximum amount of purchase place is a normal transaction day in light of the current status of the business place of KimCC (DD metal) and the business history of KimCC (DD metal) and received a false transaction without any actual transaction, and received any accusation from KimCC (DDD metal). However, there was no suspicion that it was no evidence in this part of the evidence.

(7) Rather, in the case of the Busan District Court 201.12.201. 13. 201. Busan District Court 201. 201. 5. 7. 7. 20 years after purchasing a large quantity of old rates from the collection of old rates on the ground that "GlaCC had been operating ‘q resources' from 2004 to 768. 5 years, and that "GlaCC was purchasing 200. 6 years's imprisonment with prison labor and 20 years's fine for violation of the former Punishment of Specific Crimes Act on the ground that it had been declared that it had been purchasing 20,000 won by purchasing 20,000 won and 200,000 won and 20,000 won had been purchased from 20,000 won and 20,000 won had been purchased from 20,000 won or more from 20,000 won were purchased from 20,000. 2 other than 200.

B) Limited Liability EE

(1) Around September 24, 2009, EE was established for the purpose of collecting and selling non-ferrous metal scrap metal at OO-Eup 1006, and according to the statements of neighboring enterprisers, the above place of business was almost closed during the period of business. Representative r did not have any experience in the previous industry, but did not have any business history, and it was in the state of being missing until it was arrested at the Incheon National Government Provision around October 17, 201 after departure from China on November 25, 2009.

(2) On September 2009, Bar found the plaintiff's factory and proposed closed Dong transactions. On September 30, 2009, Bab of the plaintiff's purchasing department visited the business place of the company of a limited liability company in order to verify the facilities such as closed Dong transactions, mooring, transportation trucks, etc., photographs of them were taken, and EE's registration certificate (issuance on September 30, 2009) and the registration certificate of a limited liability company (issuance on September 28, 2009), the name of Bar, the copy of the resident registration certificate, and the resident registration card (issuance on September 30, 2009), and the certificate of personal seal (issuance on September 30, 200), and all of the documents submitted to the plaintiff by each transaction party (hereinafter the same shall apply in this case that the plaintiff received the certificate of tax payment obligation from each transaction party (hereinafter the same).

(3) On October 10, 2009, from October 30, 2009 to October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff took over a closed-dong owned by EEE as a supplier, received 18 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from a limited liability company EE, and at the time of taking over a closed-dong, the Plaintiff traded by means of photographing the transport vehicle, checking the closed-dong at each time of taking over the closed-dong, and transmitting its measurement certificate (in which the date, vehicle number, the supplier, the name, weight, and the mobile phone number are printed, and the transport engineer’s name and the cell phone number are expressed at the bottom), and then sending its corresponding tax invoices and specifications by facsimile from EE to EE, and then trading by way of remitting the sum of the value of supply to EE account in the name of Value-Added Tax for a limited liability company.

(4) 유한회사 EEE은 2009년 제2기 부가가치세 확정 신고를 함에 있어 매출액은 OOOO원으로， 매입액은 OOOO원으로 선고하되， 이에 따른 부가가치세는 납부하지 않았다. 그 중 매출처는 원고(공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당) 및 주식회사 WW테크(공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당)，XX금속공업 주식회사(공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당) 3곳이고，주된 매입처(운송비용을 제외한 매입액 전액)는 성ss(tt비철，공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당)인데， 성ss(tt비철)은 완전 자료상으로 고발되었다.

(5) Meanwhile, the limited liability company, including the Plaintiff, has immediately withdrawn the money transferred from the sales office including the Plaintiff in cash, has deposited the money in cash by transferring the money to another account in the name of a limited liability company, and some of the money transferred to the account in the name of a sex ss (t.m.) (the amount of the money transferred as above has been completely deposited in cash) and there is no evidentiary document on the place of its use.

(6) From September 27, 2010 to November 21, 2010, the director of the tax office issued a disposition on December 21, 201, on the grounds that all the purchase and sale tax invoices received during the investigation period by a limited company EE were received by false means without real transactions with a limited liability company EE, and the limited liability company EE filed a complaint against a limited liability company EE and rr, but the rr was merely the nominal lender, and the r was subject to a disposition on December 21, 201, on the ground that the eE was received by a limited liability company EE without real transactions.

(c) the FF (G Resources);

(1) On October 20, 2009, HF opened a wholesale and retail business with the name of "G resources" at OO-dong 507-3 Miscellaneous land at O-si, 839 square meters. (2) However, on August 1, 2009, HF submitted a lease contract with Guu (1/2 equity right holders of the surrounding land) on the above land, but the above lease contract was forged, and Puu has leased the above land and OOdong 505-4-4 1,948 square meters to V resources, and FFF resources again leased the above land to GFM as the sub-lease industry without permission.

(3) On October 2009, the HF offered that the Plaintiff was engaged in the waste transport transaction, and the Plaintiff’s purchasing head of HF (GG resources) visited the place of business of the HF (G resources) to check the night stuffs required for the waste transport transaction, and the waste b, which are stored in the open site, such as the valleys, and the household b, etc. accumulated in the open site, taken photographs of them, and issued the registration certificate for the FF (G resources issued on October 26, 2009), the name of the HF (G resources issued on October 26, 2009), the name of the HF (F) and the name of the name of the HF (issuance issued on October 22, 2009), the copy of the passbook in the name of HF,

(4) From October 27, 2009 to January 13, 2010, the Plaintiff took over an abandoned Dong whose supplier FF (GG resources) is the supplier, sent 24 tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value of OOOOO won from FF (GG resources) in the 2nd VAT taxable period in 2009, and received 5 tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value of OOOOO won in the first VAT taxable period in 2009, and received OOOOO won in each transaction at the first VAT taxable period in 2010. When the closed Dong takes over each vehicle, the vehicle is closed, and the closed Dong is located with the date of the measurement certificate (the date of the vehicle number, the name of the supplier, the weight, and the cell phone number are printed, and on the bottom, the Plaintiff received the invoice from FF (G resources) in the name of FF (the sum of the supply value and the corresponding tax invoice and the corresponding tax invoice were sent by FF).

(5) The HF (G) reported the amount of OOO on sales for the 2nd taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, and the amount of the purchase was reported only the total amount of transportation cost, and the value-added tax was not paid. In addition to the Plaintiff (the total amount of supply related to the 2nd taxable period in 2009, the total amount of supply related to the 1st taxable period in 2010, and the total amount of supply related to the 2nd taxable period in 2009, the total amount of supply related to the 2nd taxable period in 2009, and the total amount of supply related to the 1st taxable period in 2010 is equivalent to the total amount of OOO and the total amount of supply related to the 2nd taxable period in 2009) the WWte Co., Ltd. (the equivalent to the total amount of supply supply related to the 1st taxable year in 2010).

(6) On the other hand, the HF (G) has immediately withdrawn in cash the amount remitted from the seller including the Plaintiff, and there is no documentary evidence as to the place of use.

(7) On April 21, 2010 to June 22, 2010, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China filed an accusation against the National Treasury on the fact that the investigation (the period subject to investigation: the period from October 20, 2009 to December 31, 2009) by general value-added tax item by general value-added tax item was conducted on the basis that the FF (G resources) was the data on which a false tax invoice was issued without real transaction, and the FF was subject to a disposition of suspicion (Evidence of Evidence).

(8) Meanwhile, at the time of the above tax investigation, tax officials confirmed the identity of the transport operator based on the transport vehicle numbers indicated in the measurement certificate submitted by the FF (GG resources), and individually exchanged the transport operator, and the transport operator concerned is not aware of the FF (GG resources) and at the time, he/she separately instructed him/her to transport, but cannot identify who is the person.

D) HaH (II Resources)

(1) Around September 22, 2009, H opened a scrap metal wholesale and retail business with the trade name of OO-Myeon OO 691-1 from "II resources" but actually discontinued around December 24, 2010.

(2) Around December 2009, H had offered the Plaintiff with a closed-end transaction, and the Plaintiff’s purchasing head of H (II resources) visited the Plaintiff’s place of business at HH (II resources to verify the open-site and the closed-end operation, etc. accumulated in the open-site facilities and the open-site for the closed-dong transaction, to photograph this, and then to obtain a photograph of the H (II resources)’s registration certificate (issuance on December 11, 2009), a copy of the passbook’s certificate of personal seal impression (issuance on December 15, 2009), and a written confirmation of tax payment.

(3) On December 16, 2009, from around December 23, 2009 to December 23, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired Hah (II resources)’s waste Dong, and received five tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value from H (II resources), and transferred the waste Dong to H (II resources) by means of photographing (II resources) recording the transport vehicle in which the vehicle was loaded at each time the waste Dong takes the transport vehicle, and maintaining the waste Dong, including the transport vehicle’s name and the cell phone number (in which the vehicle number, the supplier, the name, the weight, etc. are printed, and the transport engineer’s name and the cell phone number are expressed at the bottom), and then sent the corresponding tax invoice and the corresponding transaction statement from H (II resources) by facsimile (the original was sent by mail after two to three days), and the value of supply is the sum of value added tax and then remitted to the account in the name of H resources in the name of H (II resources).

(4) For the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009, HH (II) reported OOE to the sales amount without filing a purchase amount for the second taxable period of value-added tax (OOOE paid on January 29, 2010, and OOE paid on June 30, 2010, including penalty tax), for the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2010, OOE was declared as purchase amount without filing a sales amount for the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2010, and for the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2010, OOE was declared as sales amount and purchase amount, OOE was declared as sales amount, and the subsequent value-added tax was not paid. In addition, the sales amount for the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009 includes the total value-added tax on the Plaintiff (OOE) and its total value-added resource supply amount equivalent to 200 OEEE and the same 2000 PO resource supply amount.

(5) On the other hand, H(II) has paid in full the amount remitted from the seller including the Plaintiff, in cash immediately, and there is no documentary evidence as to the place of use.

(6) From November 1, 2010 to December 29, 2010, the head of the Suwon District Tax Office filed a complaint against HH (II) on the basis that the investigation related to trading order (the investigation period: from September 22, 2009 to September 30, 2010) was conducted with respect to H (II) and that H (II) was the data on which a false tax invoice was issued without a real transaction.

(7) On January 11, 2013, NH had issued a false tax invoice under the name of HH (II) and received the sales price (including value-added tax) with the account under the name of HH (II), and paid the remainder of excluding some proceeds by cashing 2012 high-priced382, and HH had committed an act of evading value-added tax by way of closing the business without paying a large amount of value-added tax, in collusion with Eyy who operates z resources from September 22, 2009 to December 24, 2010, and Hayy (zz resources) supplied it to the seller. However, the Seoul High Court sentenced 203O and 250 million won to a fine for violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc."), and reversed 2030 billion won and 206.3 billion won.

(8) Meanwhile, at the bottom of the measurement certificate issued by the Plaintiff to HaH (II) on December 23, 2009, Kim Jong-chul stated that he had worked in the “zz resources” at the time of the said tax investigation.

E) JJJ Co., Ltd.

(1) 김★★은 2004. 8. 4.경 OO시 OO구 OO동3가 380-4에서 '주식회사 정비'를 설립하여 자동차정비업 등을 영위하다가， 2006. 6. 29.경 OO시 OO구 OO동 2049-3으로 그 사업장을 이전한 후， 2006. 9. 7.경 그 상호를 '주식회사 JJJ'로 변경한 채 고철 가공 처리업을 시작하였다(2009년 하반기 이후로 자동차정비업은 사실상 중단하였다).

(2) 김★★은 2010. 1.경 원고의 공장을 찾아와 폐동 거래를 제의하였고， 이에 원고의 구매부장 최bb은 그 무렵 주식회사 JJJ의 사업장을 방문하여 폐동 거래에 필요한 사무실， 야적장 등 시설을 확인한 다음 이를 사진 촬영하였고， 주식회사 JJJ의 사업자등록증(2006. 10. 31. 발급)과 법인인감증명서(2009. 11. 6. 발급)， 주식회사 JJJ 명의의 통장 사본， 납세사실확약서를 각 교부받았다.

(3) From January 16, 2010 to February 4, 2010, the Plaintiff took over a closed-dong, a supplier of JJ from January 16, 2010, and received 43 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from JJJ, and at the time of taking over a closed-dong, the Plaintiff traded by means of photographing the transport vehicle to the account under the name of JJ in the name of the Co., Ltd., by photographing the transport vehicle and moving the closed-dong at each time of taking over the closed-dong, including the vehicle number, the vehicle number, the name of the supplier, the weight, and the mobile phone number are printed, and then sending the corresponding tax invoice and the statement of transaction by facsimile. (The original was sent by mail after two to three days), and the Plaintiff traded by means of remitting the sum of the value of supply to the account under the name of the JJ as value-added tax.

(4) 주식회사 JJJ는 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매출액은 OOOO원으로， 매입액은 OOOO원으로 선고하였다. 그 중 폐동 관련 유일한 매입처는 김◎◎(◆◆금속， 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당)인데， 김◎◎(◆◆금속)는 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매입액 선고 없이 매출액으로 OOOO원을 신고하였다.

(5) 한편 주식회사 JJJ는 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 원고를 비롯한 매출처로부터 송금받은 대금 대부분을 김◎◎(◆◆금속) 명의의 계좌로 이체하였고， 이와 같이 이체된 금액은 전액 즉시 현금으로 출금되었다.

(6) OO지방국세청장은 2010. 7. 8.부터 2010. 10. 28.까지 주식회사 JJJ에 대하여 자료상 혐의자 조사(조사대상기간 : 2010. 1. 1.부터 2010. 6. 30.까지)를 실시한 결과， 주식회사 JJJ가 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 수수한 세금 계산서 중 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당의 매출 세금계산서(98.5%)와 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당의 매입 세금계산서(99.6%)가 실물 거래 없이 허위로 수수된 것으로서 주식회사 JJJ가 자료상이라고 판단하여 주식회사 JJJ와 김★★ 을 고발하였다.

(7) 그런데 김★★은 2011. 12. 23. 대구지방법원 2011고합262， 680(병합) 호 사건에서 "김★★은 주식회사 JJJ를 운영하던 중， 김◎◎ 등과 공모하여 김◎◎ 명의로 '◆◆금속'이라는 상호로 사업자등록을 한 후， 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 폐동 수집상들로부터 세금계산서를 발급받지 아니한 채 폐동을 매입하고， 이를 주식회사 JJJ 등 정상적인 업체에 납품하면서 매출 세금계산서는 발행하되， 2010. 7. 초순경 '◆◆금속'을 사실상 폐업하는 방식으로 김◎◎(◆◆금속) 앞으로 부과된 약 OOOO원의 부가가치세를 포탈하였다"라는 범죄사실 등에 관하여 특정범죄가중처벌등 에관한법률위반(조세)죄로 정역 3년 및 벌금 45억 원을 선고받아 항소하였으나， 2012. 4. 5. 대구고등법원 2012노9호로 항소 기각 판결을 선고받아 2012. 4. 13. 그 판결이 확정되었다.

(f) Park K (Lmera)

(1) Around December 24, 2009, ParkK opened a wholesale and retail business with the trade name of OO-gu OO-dong 367 "LLmera", and around January 18, 2010, LO-gun OO-gun O-gun OO-gun 879-10 square meters and closed his business in September 201. Park KOK had 33 criminal records, such as fraud, and had no experience in the previous business.

(2) Around January 2010, ParkK proposed a transaction of waste to the Plaintiff, and the head of the Plaintiff’s purchasing department visited Park KK (Lmer)’s workplace at around that time to verify facilities, such as camping sites and straws, necessary for closed operation transactions, and photographs of this, and photographed the business operator’s registration certificate (issuance on January 18, 201) of Park K (Lmer) (Issuance on November 26, 2009), the certified copy of the resident registration card of Park K (issuance on November 26, 2009), the certificate of personal seal impression (issuance on November 26, 2009) (issuance on November 26, 2009), and the copy of the passbook in the name of Lmer (Lmer) and the certificate of tax payment confirmation.

(3) From January 22, 2010 to July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) taken over an end-on Dong that LMK (LM) is the supplier; (b) sent 164 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of OOOOOO in the first VAT taxable period of value added tax in 2010; and (c) received 22 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of OOOOOOO won in the second taxable period of value added tax in 2010; (d) taken up the end-on vehicle each time the end-on vehicle takes up, took up the end-on vehicle, took up the end-on vehicle, and entered the vehicle number, the name, weight, etc. of the supplier, and the mobile phone number on the bottom in the name and number of the supplier; and (c) sent the original tax invoice in the name of 2010 to LMK (LLF) and then sent the original tax invoice in the name corresponding to the account by mail.

(4) 박KK(LL메탈)은 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매입액 신고 없이 매출액으로 OOOO원을 신고하되， 이에 따른 부가가치세는 납부하지 않았다. 매출처는 원고를 비롯한 4개 업체인데， 이는 2009년 제2기 부가가치세 과세 기간에 자료상 행위를 하였다는 이유로 고발된 정◇◇(△△금속)의 매출처와 거의 동일 할 뿐만 아니라 2010년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 자료상 행위를 하였다는 이유로 고발된 김QQ(RR메탈)의 매출처와 동일하다.

(5) On the other hand, Park K (Lmer) paid in cash to the seller, including the Plaintiff, immediately after the full amount of the money remitted from the seller, and there is no evidentiary document as to the place of use.

(6) As a result of the investigation (the period subject to the investigation: the period from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010) on data on the data from November 22, 2010 to October 15, 201, the head of the office of tax office filed a complaint against Park K in the light of the fact that Park K in the light of the fact that Park in the light of the fact that Park in the light of the fact that Park in the light of the fact that Park in the light of the fact that the data had been investigated on the data on the data (the period subject to the investigation: the period from January 1, 201 to June 30, 201) had issued a false tax invoice without real transactions, and Park in the

G) PowerM (NM)

(1) 권MM은 2009. 10. 25.경 OO시 OO구 OO면 OO리 66에서 'NN금속'이라는 상호로 고철 비철 도매업을 개업하였고， 2010. 6. 14.경 같은 리 1130-21로 사업장을 이전하였다가[동종 업종을 영위하는 주식회사 ▲▲금속과 이▽▽(▼▼▼메탈)도 같은 사업장을 사용하였다. 2010. 12. 6.경 다시 OO시 OO동 OO리 397로 사업장을 이전하였다. 그런데 종전에 권MM은 자료상으로 고발된 김☆☆(◁◁메탈)의 직원으로 근무하면서 김☆☆(◁◁메탈) 등의 자료상 행위를 도운 전력이 있다.

(2) Around June 2010, GM offered the Plaintiff with a closed-end transaction, and the head of the Plaintiff’s purchasing division visited the place of business of NM (NM) at that time check the office required for closed-dong transaction, the office, the open-site, and the closed-dong, which is accumulated in social and open-sites, such as urban communities and field, and photographs thereof, and the certificate of business registration (issuance on June 14, 2010), the copy of the resident registration certificate of HM, the certified copy of the resident registration card (issuance on June 23, 2010), and the certificate of personal seal impression (issuance on June 23, 2010), and the copy of the passbook in the name of MM (NM), and each written confirmation of tax payment.

(3) From June 25, 2010 to October 5, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) took over an abandoned Dong in which NAM (NM) is the supplier; (b) sent to NAM (NM (NM) a tax invoice equivalent to the total supply price of KRW 98,548,500 in the taxable period of value added tax 171 in 2010; and (c) received 16 tax invoices equivalent to the total supply price in the value-added tax taxable period of value 271 in 2010; and (d) took over the closed Dong each time it takes up and takes up a transport vehicle, while taking up the closed Dong, the Plaintiff took up the transport vehicle and takes up the waste, and then sent the vehicle number, name, and weight of the supplier, and the mobile phone number at the bottom; and (c) received the invoice from NAM (NM) and then received the invoice in the name corresponding to the NAM (NM-M-M) by mail, and received it from the original account.

(4) In relation to the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, KumM (NM) reported OOO and OOOOOE as sales for the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 200. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, OOO and OOOOE was reported as sales, and in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, OOOE and OOOE (in the above purchase amount, OOE does not fall under the subject of input tax deduction because it did not submit a deduction report). The above sales office includes Plaintiff (the total supply value related to the first taxable period of the year 2010, and the total supply value related to the second taxable period of the supply value related to the second taxable period of the year 2010, and the total supply value equivalent to the total supply value equivalent to the 2010 OMM 20,010.

(5) Meanwhile, the NM (NM) paid the amount transferred from the seller, including the Plaintiff, in full to cash immediately, and there is no documentary evidence as to the place of use.

(6) From June 14, 2011 to October 21, 2011, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China filed an accusation against NAM on the basis of data from the fact that he/she conducted the investigation (period subject to investigation: from October 25, 2009 to December 31, 2010) on the suspect, and that NA (NM) was the data on which he/she issued a false tax invoice without real transactions.

(7) On May 23, 2013, KumM filed an appeal after being sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor and fine OOOO0 won for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice), and the present Seoul High Court Decision 2013No1895 (Seoul High Court Decision 201No1895) on the following facts: (a) 21 companies including the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice equivalent to the total value of OOO0 in the second taxable period from 2009 to 2010; and (b) 2013No1895).

H) PP metal Co., Ltd.

(1) 주식회사 ◀◀◀은 2008. 3. 19.경 고철 비철 도소매업 등을 목적으로 설립되었는데(2009. 7. 23.경 상호가 '주식회사 ◀◀◀유통'으로 변경되었다)， 2010. 6.경 조▷▷는 위 회사를 인수하여 2010. 7. 6.경 상호를 '주식회사 PP금속'으로 다시 변경 (종전에 OO시 OO구 OO동5가 2 OO빌딩 608호에 있던 사무실을 2010. 7. 20.경 같은 구 OO동OO가 9-3 2층으로 이전하였다)한 채 그 대표자로 재직하다가 2010. 10. 10.경 중국으로 출국하여 현재까지 소재불명 상태이다. 조▷▷는 위와 같이 회사를 인수하기 전까지는 건설현장에서 일용 노무자로 근무하였을 뿐， 폐동 관련 업계에 종사한 경험은 없었다.

(2) 조▷▷는 주식회사 PP금속의 야적장으로 사용할 명목으로 OO시장 OO면 OO리 120-3에 있는 창고를 임대차보증금 OOOO원， 차임 월 OOOO원， 임대차기간 2010. 7. 8.부터 2012. 7. 7.까지로 정하여 임차하였으나， 실제로 사용한 적은 거의 없었다.

(3) 조▷▷는 2010. 7.경 원고에게 폐동 거래를 제의하였고， 이에 원고의 구매부장 최bb은 그 무렵 주식회사 PP금속의 사업장을 방문하여 폐동 거래에 필요한 사무실， 야적장， 계근대 등 시설을 확인한 다음 이를 사진 촬영하였고， 주식회사 PP금속의 사업자등록증(2010. 7. 8. 발급)과 법인인감증명서(2010. 7. 8. 발급)， 법인등기부등 본(2010. 7. 13. 발급)， 사업장 및 야적장에 관한 조▷▷ 명의의 임대차계약서， 조▷▷의 명함과 신분증 사본， 주민등록표 등본(2010. 7. 19. 발급)1)， 주식회사 PP금속 명의의 통장 사본， 납세사실확약서를 각 교부받았다.

(4) From July 15, 2010 to September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff took over a closed-dong in which PP metal company is a supplier, received 47 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from PP metal, and at each time it takes over a closed-dong, the Plaintiff traded the waste-dong in the way of photographing the transport vehicle, taking the transport vehicle, and taking up the closed-dong at each time it takes the vehicle, and then remitting the transport vehicle, and then sending the transport engineer’s name and cell phone number to PP metal, and sending the corresponding tax invoice and statement of transaction by facsimile (the original was sent by mail after two to three days), and then remitting the sum of the value of supply to the account in the name of value-added tax corporation.

(5) 주식회사 PP금속은 2010년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매출액으로 OOOO원을 신고하고， 매입액으로는 운송비용 OOOO원만 선고하되， 이에 따른 부가가치세는 납부하지 않았고(위와 같이 2010. 10.경 이후로 그 대표자 조▷▷가 소재 불명 상태임에도，2010년 제2기 예정 부가가치세 신고기간에 위와 같은 내용의 신고서는 제출되었다)， 매출처는 원고(공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당) 및 우신 금속 주식회사(공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당) 2곳이다.

(6) Meanwhile, in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, the PP metal Co., Ltd. immediately transferred the money from the Plaintiff et al. to another account in the name of the PP metal Co., Ltd., and deposited the entire amount in cash, and there is no evidentiary document on the place of use.

(7) OO지방국세청장은 2011. 2. 11.부터 2011. 10. 26.까지 주식회사 PP금속에 대하여 자료상 조사(조사대상기간 : 2010. 7. 1.부터 2010. 12. 31.까지)를 실시한 결과， 주식회사 PP금속이 2010년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 실물 거래 없이 허위 매출세금계산서를 발급한 자료상이라고 판단하여 주식회사 PP금속과 조▷▷를 고발 하였으나， 조▷▷는 현재 소재불명으로 기소중지(지명수배) 처분이 이루어진 상태이다.

(8) 한편 OO지방국세청장은 주식회사 PP금속의 또 다른 매출처인 우선 금속 주식회사에 대하여 세무조사를 설시한 결과， 우선금속 주식회사가 주식회사 PP금속과 거래할 당시 그 사업장을 직접 방문하고 대표자 조▷▷를 만났으며 OO시에 있는 야적장을 확인하는 등 거래당사자로서의 주의의무를 다하였다고 보아， 허위 매입 세금계산서 수취의 점에 관하여 혐의없음으로 조사를 종결하였다.

자) 김QQ(RR메탈)

(1) 김QQ는 2010. 7. 6.경 OO시 OO군 OO읍 O리 946에서 'RR메탈' 이라는 상호로 재생재활용품 도소매업을 개업하였는데， 당시 만 26세로 종전에는 폐동 관련 업계에 종사한 경험이 없었고， 사기죄， 도박죄 등의 전과가 있을 뿐이었다.

(2) 김QQ는 2010. 6. 28.경 사업장 소재지인 OO시 OO군 OO읍 OO리 946에 관하여 그 소유자 남▶▶와 사이에 임대차보증금 OOOO원， 차임 월 OOOO원에 임대차계약을 체결한 후， 그곳에 울타리를 치고 컨테이너 사무실， 계근대， 야적장 등을 설치하였으나， 사업기간 동안 그곳에 차량이나 사람의 왕래는 거의 없었다. 또한， 김QQ는 OO시 OO동 119 전 6，714㎡에도 별도로 야적장을 마련하였으나， 사실은 그 지목이 '전'이어서 야적장으로 사용할 수는 없는 곳이었다.

(3) 이후 김QQ는 2010. 12.경 위 사업장에 관한 임대차계약을 해지하고， 2010. 12. 18.경 정♤♤(2011. 1. 초순경부터 같은 장소에서 '♠♠♠금속'이라는 상호로 영업하고 있다)에게 계근대 등 시실물을 OOOO원에 양도하였다.

(4) 한편 위와 같이 김QQ가 임대차계약을 체결할 당시나 해지할 당시， 그 리고 시실물 양도계약을 체결할 당시 모두 성명불상의 40대 남성 1명이 김QQ와 동행하여 그 자가 직접 금전을 수수하였다.

(5) 김QQ는 2010. 6.경 원고에게 폐동 거래를 제의하였고， 이에 원고의 구매부장 최bb은 그 무렵 김QQ(RR메탈)의 사업장을 방문하여 폐동 거래에 필요한 사무실， 야적장， 계근대 등 시설을 확인한 다음 이를 사진 촬영하였고， 김QQ(RR메탈)의 사업자등록증(2010. 6. 30. 발급)， 김QQ의 명함과 주민등록증 사본， 주민등록표 등본 (2010. 7. 1. 발급)， 인감증명서(2010. 7. 2. 발급)， 김QQ(RR메탈) 명의의 통장 사본， 납 세사실확약서를 각 교부받았다.

(6) 원고는 2010. 7. 21.경부터 2010. 12. 30.경까지 김QQ(RR메탈)가 공급자라고 자처하는 폐동을 인수하고 김QQ(RR메탈)로부터 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당의 세금계산서 282매를 교부받았는데， 폐동을 인수할 때마다 폐동을 실은 운송차량을 촬영하고， 폐동을 계근하여 그 계량증명서(날짜， 차량번호， 공급업체， 품명， 중량 등이 출력되어 있고， 하단에 운송기사 이름과 휴대전화번호가 수기로 기재되어 있다)를 김QQ(RR메탈)에게 팩스로 송부한 후， 김QQ(RR메탈)로부터 그에 상응 하는 세금계산서와 거래명세서를 팩스로 송부받으면(원본은 2~3일 후 우편으로 송부받았다)， 그 공급가액에다가 부가가치세를 합한 금액 상당을 김QQ(RR메탈) 명의의 계좌로 송금하는 방식으로 거래하였다.

(7) 김QQ(RR메탈)는 2010년 제271 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매입액 신고 없이 매출액으로 OOOO원을 신고하였는데(이에 따르면 납부하여야 할 부가가치세가 약 OOOO원에 이르지만， 이를 전혀 납부하지 않았다)， 실제로는 위 기간 동안 원고를 비롯한 4개 업체[앞서 본 박KK(LL메탈)의 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간 동안의 매출처와 동일하다]에 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당의 매출 세금계산서를 발급하였다.

(8) 한편 김QQ(RR메탈)는 원고를 비롯한 매출처로부터 송금받은 대금을 전액 즉시 현금으로 출금하였는데， 그 사용처에 관한 증빙자료는 없다.

(9) OO지방국세청장은 2011. 6. 14.부터 2011. 9. 22.까지 김QQ(RR메탈)에 대하여 자료상 혐의자 추적 조사(조사대상기간 : 2010. 7. 1.부터 2010. 12. 31.까지 )를 실시한 결과， 김QQ(RR메탈)가 실물 거래 없이 허위 매출 세금계산서를 발급한 자료상이라고 판단하여 김QQ를 고발하였으나， 김QQ는 현재 소재불명으로 기소중지(지명수배)처분이 이루어진 상태이다

(j) SSS Co., Ltd. (SSS. around May 2, 201, changed its trade name to SS metal of a stock company, and changed from September 30, 201 to SSS of a stock company again on September 30, 201, and hereinafter referred to as "SS of a stock company")

(1) 주식회사 SSS은 2007. 6. 8.경 OO시 OO동 308-26에서 비철금속 제조 판매업 등을 목적으로 설립되었고， 2010. 4. 10.경 OO시 OO면 OO리 322-17로 사업장을 이전하였다가， 2010. 7. 19.경 OO시 OO면 OO리 116으로 다시 이전하였으며， 2011. 4. 26.경 OO시 OO면 OO리 21-12로 다시 이전하였다. 주식회사 SSS의 설립 당시 대표자는 이우영이었으나， 수차례 변경을 거쳐 2010. 4.경 현♡♡으로 변경되었고， 2010. 11. 26.경 다시 최♥♥으로 변경되었다. 현♡♡， 최♥♥은 모두 종전에는 폐동 관련 업계에 종사한 경험이 없었다.

(2) 현♡♡은 2010. 7.경 원고에게 폐동 거래를 제의하였고， 이에 원고의 구매부장 최bb은 그 무렵 주식회사 SSS의 사업장을 방문하여 폐동 거래에 필요한 사무실， 야적장 건물， 계근대 등 시설과 건물 내에 쌓여 있는 폐동 등을 확인한 다음 이를 사진 촬영하였고， 주식회사 SSS의 사업자등록증(2010. 7. 28. 발급)과 법인인감증명서 (2010. 8. 2. 발급)， 법인등기부등본(2010. 8. 2. 발급)， 사업장에 관한 현♡♡ 명의의 임대차계약서， 현♡♡의 명함과 신분증 사본， 주민등록표 등본(2010. 8. 2. 발급)， 주식회사 SSS 명의의 통장 사본， 납세사실확약서를 각 교부받았다2) 또한 주식회사 SSS의 대표자가 2010. 11. 26.경 현♡♡에서 최♥♥으로 변경되자， 원고는 주식회사 SSS의 사업자등록증(2010. 12. 1. 발급)과 법인인감증명서 (2010. 12. 1. 발급)， 최♥♥의 명함과 신분증 사본， 주민등록표 등본(2010. 12. 1. 발급) 등을 다시 교부받았다.

(3) From July 21, 2010 to June 30, 2011, the Plaintiff received 112 tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value from SS in the second taxable period of value added tax for the second taxable period of value added tax in 2010 from SS, and received OOO's tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value in the first taxable period of value added tax for the first taxable year of 2011 (However, the tax invoice related to the tax invoice issued by SS in the first taxable period of value added tax in 2011 from SS did not include the instant disposition grounds), and each closed Dong received 200 through Sax after photographing the transport vehicle and mooring the closed Dong, including its certificate of measurement (one day, the number of the vehicle, the name of the supplier, the mobile phone number, and the mobile phone name and the mobile phone number on the lower part), and then sending the tax invoice to Sax through the name of Sax or fax, the Plaintiff received the tax invoice equivalent to the supply value in the name of S.

(4) 주식회사 SSS은 2009년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매출액으로 OOOO원， 매입액으로 OOOO원을 신고하였고(그 이전 사업기간에도 매입 매출액이 이를 초과한 적은 없었다)， 2010년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매입액 신고 없이 매출액으로 OOOO원을 신고하였는데， 2010년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 이르러 매출액은 OOOO원으로， 매입액은 OOOO원으로 급등하였다. 2010년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 신고한 매입액 중 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당이 장♧♧(♣♣금속)으로부터 매입한 것인데， 장♧♧(♣♣금속)은 완전 자료상으로 고발되었다.

(5) 한편 주식회사 SSS은 2010년 제271 부가가치세 과세기간에 원고를 비롯한 매출처로부터 송금받은 대금을 즉시 현금으로 출금하거나 주된 매입처인 장♧♧ (♣♣금속)에게 이체하였다(이와 같이 이체된 금액도 결국 모두 현금으로 출금되었다).

(6) OO지방국세청장은 2011. 6. 14.부터 2011. 10. 31.까지 주식회사 SSS에 대하여 자료상 혐의자 조사(조사대상기간 : 2008. 1. 21.부터 2010. 12. 31.까지)를 실시한 결과， 주식회사 SSS이 2010년 제2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 수수한 세금계산서 중 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당의 매출 세금계산서(99.9%)와 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당의 매입 세금계산서(98.8%)가 실물 거래 없이 허위로 수수된 것으로서 주식회사 SSS이 자료상이라고 판단하여 주식회사 SSS， 현♡♡， 최♥♥을 고발 하였으나， 현♡♡은 현재 소재불명이고， 최♥♥에 대하여서는 현재 수사 진행 중이다.

k) TTM Co., Ltd.

(1) On June 23, 2010, TT metal Co., Ltd. was established for the purpose of OO-dong 686 at OO-si 686 for wholesale and retail business of steel scrap metal. The initial representative was Kim was Kim, and around October 4, 2010, it was changed into the South Korean same group, and the remaining T-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-

(2) 남◈◈은 2010. 10.경 원고에게 폐동 거래를 제의하였고， 이에 원고의 구매부장 최▣▣은 그 무렵 주식회사 TT금속의 사업장을 방문하여 폐동 거래에 필요한 사무실， 야적장， 집게차 등 시설을 확인한 다음 이를 사진 촬영하였고， 주식회사 ◐◐금속의 사업자등록증(2010. 10. 6. 발급)과 법인등기부등본(2010. 10. 5. 발급)， 남◈◈의 명함과 주민등록증 사본， 주민등록표 등본(2010. 10. 1. 발급)， 주식회사 TT금속 명의의 통장 사본， 납세사실확약서를 각 교부받았다.

(3) From October 8, 2010 to December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff took over a closed-dong in which TT Metal Co., Ltd. is a supplier, received 9 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from TT Metal Co., Ltd., and transferred OOOOO won from the closed-dong each time it takes over the closed-dong, taken a transport vehicle in which the closed-dong was loaded, and took up the closed-dong, and entered its measurement certificate (in which the date, the vehicle number, the supplier, the name, weight, and the cell phone number are printed, and the transport engineer’s name and the cell phone number are expressed at the bottom), sent by facsimile the corresponding tax invoice and the statement of transaction by facsimile from TT Metal, and received the corresponding tax invoice and the corresponding transaction statement by facsimile (the original was sent by mail after 2-3 days from the original) and then traded in the way of remitting the sum of the value of supply to the account in the name of value-added tax corporation.

(4) When filing the scheduled value-added tax return for the second period of value-added tax in 2010, the corporation reported OOO and OOOOOO in its sales revenue, and when filing the second period of value-added tax in 2010, the sales revenue increased to OOO, and the purchase amount was reported to OOO, and the value-added tax was not paid.

(5) Meanwhile, in the fourth quarter of April 2010, TT Metal Co., Ltd. immediately pays money transferred from the Plaintiff and other sales offices to the Plaintiff, or withdraws money in cash after transferring the money to other accounts in the name of TT Metal Co., Ltd., and there is no documentary evidence as to the place of use.

(6) From April 11, 201 to May 23, 2011, the director of the OO head of the tax office filed an accusation against TTM and the remaining same legal personality on the ground that the investigation related to trading order (the period subject to investigation: the period from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010) was conducted with respect to TTM, and that the transaction at the time Kim is conducted as the representative, and that transaction at the time of Kim's employment was normal transaction, but after the representative changed to South Korea, TTM was considered to be the data on which a false tax invoice was issued without real transaction. However, the remaining legal personality related to TTM was made in the state of the suspension of prosecution due to the unknown whereabouts at present.

l) UUmeral Corporation

(1) 주식회사 UU메탈은 2010. 12. 21.경 OO도 OO군 OO읍 OO리 794-2에서 비철금속 판매업 등을 목적으로 설립되어 2010. 12. 24.경 OO시 OO동 565-16으로 사업장을 이전하였는데， 그 대표자인 배▤▤은 2011. 4. 말경 주식회사 UU메탈을 사실상 폐업한 채 잠적하였다. 인근 주민 등의 진술에 따르면， 위 사업장에서는 배▤▤이 혼자 근무하였고， 간혹 폐동을 실은 화물차량이 위 사업장으로 와서 사진을 촬영한 적은 있으나， 위 사업장에 폐동이 야적되어 있거나 구체적인 작업이 이루어지지는 않았다.

(2) 배▤▤은 2011. 1.경 원고에게 폐동 거래를 제의하였고， 이에 원고의 구매부장 최bb은 그 무렵 주식회사 UU메탈의 사업장을 방문하여 폐동 거래에 필요한 사무실， 야적장 등 시설을 확인한 다음 이를 사진 촬영하였고， 주식회사 UU메탈의 사업자등록증(2010. 12. 30. 발급)과 법인인감증명서(2011. 1. 3. 발급)， 법인등기부등본(2011. 1. 3. 발급)， 사업장에 관한 배▤▤ 명의의 임대차계약서， 배▤▤의 명함과 신분증 사본， 주민등록표 등본(2011. 1. 3. 발급)， 주식회사 UU메탈 명의의 통장 사본， 납세사실확약서를 각 교부받았다.

(3) From January 4, 201 to April 12, 2011, the Plaintiff took over a closed-dong, a supplier of UUmers, and received 124 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from UUmers from UUmers, and first takes over the closed-dong, the Plaintiff sent by facsimile the photographs from which the transport vehicle started at the place of business of UUmers, etc., and then taken the photographs of the transport vehicle that arrived at the Plaintiff’s place in the Plaintiff’s place of business, taken the photographs of the transport vehicle that arrived at the Plaintiff’s place of business, taken the vehicle, taken the vehicle’s photograph, affixed the vehicle’s identification number, the supplier’s name, the name, the weight, and the cell phone number were printed, and entered at the lower end in the UUmers by facsimile, and received the corresponding tax invoices and specifications by facsimile (2-3 days after receiving the original tax invoices and specifications by facsimile, and received the value of supply in the name of UUmers in the combined account.

(4) UUmer Co., Ltd. did not report purchase sales, etc. for the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 201, and the Plaintiff purchased a total sum of the supply price from UUmer, etc. from UUmer, thereby issuing tax invoices reported by the other party to the transaction (UUmer’s sales office) reaches the total sum of the supply price.

(5) Meanwhile, UUmers Co., Ltd. transferred money from its sales office, including the Plaintiff, to another account under the name of UUmers, and completely deposited money in cash, and there is no documentary evidence as to the place of use.

(6) OO세무서장은 2011. 6. 28.부터 2011. 8. 25.까지 주식회사 UU메탈에 대하여 자료상 조사(조사대상기간 : 2011. 1. 1.부터 2011. 5. 30.까지)를 실시한 결과， 주식회사 UU메탈이 실물 거래 없이 허위 매출 세금계산서를 발급한 자료상이라고 판단하여 주식회사 UU메탈과 배▤▤을 고발하였으나， 배▤▤은 현재 소재불명으로 기소중 지 처분이 이루어진 상태이다.

(m) VMM Co., Ltd.

(1) VV금속 주식회사는 2010. 12. 31.경 OO시 OO구 OO동 291에서 비철 도소매업 등을 목적으로 설립되었는데， 그 대표자 최▥▥는 종전에는 폐동 관련 업계에 종사한 경험이 없었다.

(2) VV금속 주식회사는 2010. 12. 중순경 신▩▩과 사이에 위 사업장에 관하여 임대차보증금 OOOO원， 차임 월 OOOO원(임대차기간은 정하지 않았다)에 임대차계약을 체결한 후(다만 임대차보증금 명목으로 OOOO원만 지급한 채 나머지 보증금의 지급을 지체하다가 연락이 두절되었다)， 곧바로 간판을 달고서 차량 사진을 자주 촬영하였고， 조립식 가건물 앞마당에 폐동을 보관한다는 명목으로 대형 마대자루 여러 개를 적치하였으나， 최▥▥ 등이 잠적한 이후로 그 내부를 확인한 결과 일반 쓰레기만 담겨 있었다.

(3) 최▥▥는 2011. 1.경 원고에게 폐동 거래를 제의하였고， 이에 원고의 구매부장 최bb은 그 무렵 VV금속 주식회사의 사업장을 방문하여 폐동 거래에 필요한 사무실， 야적장， 계근대， 집게차 등 시설을 확인한 다음 이를 사진 촬영하였고， VV금속 주식회사의 사업자등록증(2011. 1. 5. 발급)과 법인인감증명서(2010. 12. 31. 발급)， 법인 등기부등본(2010. 12. 31. 발급)， 사업장에 관한 최▥▥ 명의의 임대차계약서， 최▥▥의 명함과 주민등록증 사본， 주민등록표 등본(2010. 12. 29. 발급)， VV금속 주식회사 명의의 통장 사본， 납세사실확약서를 각 교부받았다.

(4) From January 5, 201 to February 23, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) took over a closed Dong where VM corporation is a supplier; (b) received 67 tax invoices equivalent to the total value of supply from VM corporation; (c) first, taken over a closed Dong, sent by facsimile a photograph from which the transport vehicle starts at the workplace of VM corporation; (d) taken photographs of the transport vehicle that arrived at the Plaintiff’s workplace; and (e) taken the vehicle’s photograph from the vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle number, name, weight, etc. at the lower end; and (e) sent a corresponding tax invoice and statement from V metal company’s account.

(5) VV금속 주식회사는 2011년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 관하여 매입 매출액 등을 신고하지 않았는데， 원고는 VV금속 주식회사로부터 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당을 매입하였다고 신고하였고， 주식회사 ♩♩는 VV금속 주식회사로부터 공급가액 합계 OOOO원 상당을 매입하였다고 신고하였다.

(6) 한편 VV금속 주식회사는 매출처인 원고 및 주식회사 ♩♩로부터 송금받은 대금을 VV금속 주식회사 명의의 다른 계좌로 분산 이체한 후 전액 현금으로 출금하였는데， 그 사용처에 관한 증빙자료는 없다.

(7) OOO세무서장은 2011. 6. 23.부터 2011. 10. 31.까지 VV금속 주식회사에 대하여 자료상 조사(조사대상기간 : 2011. 1. 1.부터 2011. 3. 31.까지)를 실시한 결과， VV금속 주식회사가 실물 거래 없이 허위 매출 세금계산서를 발급한 자료상이라고 판단하여 VV금속 주식회사와 최▥▥를 고발하였으나， 최▥▥는 현재 소재불명으로 기소중지(지명수배) 처분이 이루어진 상태이다.

Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 4 through Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 23 through Gap evidence 637, and Eul evidence 5 through 28, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268, Dec. 26, 2008) or Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201) provides that a tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction constitutes a “tax invoice different from that provided for in Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011). In principle, the burden of proving that a specific transaction constitutes a “tax invoice different from that provided for in Article 208Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 16, 2008).

In addition, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is an unlawful disposition lacking in taxation requirements, unless it proves that the other party is not appropriate to apply the empirical rule, in general, while the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements exists in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax imposition, and that the facts of taxation requirements can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).

B) Tax invoices issued by KimCC (DDM)

(1) The purport of the entire pleadings as to the facts acknowledged earlier