Whether the plaintiff can be seen as a good faith trading party

The Plaintiff did not know that the name of the supplier of the instant tax invoice differs, nor did he knew.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 4,18,250 on November 1, 2004 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2004, value-added tax of KRW 8,217,010 on February 2, 2002, value-added tax of KRW 8,617,940 on January 203.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 시흥시 논곡동 91-63에서 '◆◆수지'라는 상호로 합성수지 도매업을 하여 오던 중, ●●종합상사(대표자 ○○○)로부터 2002. 4. 30.부터 2003. 6. 3.까지 사이에 다음 표에서 보는 바와 같이 2002년 1기분 공급가액 합계 25,500,000원의 매입세금계산서 3장, 2002년 2기분 공급가액 합계 53,955,000원의 매입세금계산서 7장, 2003년 1기분 공급가액 합계 64,337,500원의 매입세금계산서 6장(위 매입세금계산서들을 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 한다)을 각 발급받아 2002년 1, 2기분 및 2003년 1기분 부가가치세 신고시 위 매입세액을 각 공제하여 신고하였다.

(Omission of List)

B. The defendant started on January 4, 2002 and received and delivered a false tax invoice from the head of Sungbuk District Tax Office until the closure of the business on June 30, 2003, and notified the plaintiff, who received the tax invoice from the comprehensive company of Bright, and on June 14, 2004, the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation that "the substance of the tax invoice of this case, which the plaintiff received from the comprehensive company of Bright to Bright, is different from the fact that it was delivered at the place of business located in Dongdaemun-dong, Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Madong." The plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review on July 1, 2004, and on September 20, 2004, the plaintiff made a decision not to adopt the tax invoice on the ground that "the plaintiff neglected the duty of due care for the comprehensive company of B right to taxation."

C. The Defendant calculated the value-added tax amount to be additionally paid by the Plaintiff on November 1, 2004, where the amount of the input tax reported by the Plaintiff was not deducted from the amount of the output tax for the second term of 2002, the amount of KRW 53,95,00,00 for the second term of 202, and KRW 64,337,50 for the first term of 203, not from the amount of the output tax for the first term of 2003, and the amount of the additional tax corresponding thereto is to be added to the amount of the value-added tax for the first term of 4,118,250 for the second term of 202, the amount of the value-added tax for the second term of 202, and KRW 8,617,940 for the first term of 203 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On December 10, 2004, the Plaintiff requested an inquiry to the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on July 7, 2005.

The purport of Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Gap evidence 5-1 through 16, Eul evidence 1-1 through 16, Eul evidence 8-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party, who is the head of business of the Bilateral General Co., Ltd., and received the instant tax invoice under the name of the Bilateral General Co., Ltd., and thus, the instant tax invoice is based on the real transaction with the Bilateral General Co., Ltd., and even if it is not a transaction with Bilateral General Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party, who trades the dedicated trust with the head of business of B

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff was supplied with plastic materials from the dedicated to the dedicated set of B/L, which refers to the head of the B/L company of B/L, and received the instant tax invoice issued by B/L. At the time of transaction, the dedicated to the dedicated set of B/L was used, stating that the dedicated to B/L is the head of the business of B/L, and issued the

(2) The Plaintiff paid the price of the above goods in bills, checks, or cash, and some of them, as requested by the dedicated unit, transferred twice to the account of ○○○○, the representative of the comprehensive company of Bilateral, on two occasions, to the account of 10 times, and to the account of YU, on ten occasions, and one time to the account of YU.

(3) However, the △△○○○ was supplied with plastic materials and plastics from the place of residence close to the △○○○○○ and the place of the residence close to the △△△○○○, which was leased by the △○○○○○○, and traded by means of transporting the said goods to the Plaintiff and other transaction partners.

(4) On the other hand, 【○○○○○○’s high flab, which was issued a tax invoice without any real transaction by the direction of ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○ issued five tax invoices of KRW 24,027,00 in total to the customer without real transaction over four occasions between September 30, 200 and December 30, 2002, “The tax invoice of KRW 24,027,000 in total was issued to the customer without real transaction.” The summary order of KRW 2,00,000 from the above court on January 4, 2005 was issued and the summary order of KRW 2,00,000 was finalized on March 10, 205, and this does not correspond to this.

Evidence No. 4, Evidence No. 8-2, 3, Evidence No. 9-5, 6, 23, 24, Evidence No. 10, Evidence No. 4-3, Evidence No. 8-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where all or part of the requisite entry items in the tax invoice are entered differently from the fact. The meaning of "the fact" refers to a case where the requisite entry items in the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual supplier of the goods or services or with the supplier, the price, and the time of the supply of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice are not allowed to deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the above nominal name, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount, etc., must prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du22777, Jun., 2)

위 인정사실에 의하면, 원고와의 이 사건 거래에 있어서 실제 공급자는 ●●종합상사가 아니라 ◎◎◎ 또는 ♧♧♧, ◇◇◇ 이라고 할 것인데, 이 사건 세금계산서에는 그 공급명의자가 ●●종합상사로 되어 있어 이는 사실과 다르게 기재된 세금계산서라고 할 것이다.

However, in light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the dedicated deposit is called as the head of the business of the Bilateral integrated company and the name stated as such, the Plaintiff made a trust transaction, and the Plaintiff was actually supplied goods from the dedicated deposit to the account designated by the dedicated deposit, and that part of the amount was transferred to the account, which was included in the account of the dedicated deposit, the Plaintiff did not know that the name of the supplier of the instant tax invoice was different, and that there was no negligence in failing to know.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the disposition of this case and cancelling it.