2013west 3095 ( November 04, 2013)

The Plaintiff cannot be seen as a bona fide trading party, and the instant tax invoice is not subject to input tax deduction.

Considering the characteristics of the open market, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not confirm the basic matters about the trading partner while making a high-amount transaction, and that it seems difficult to view the Plaintiff as a bona fide trading party on the ground that there is no credibility in the assertion that the Plaintiff did not know whether the Plaintiff is a nominal business operator.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Guhap51869 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 23, 2014

September 6, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The value-added tax for the first period of December 1, 2011 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2012 by the Defendant and the OOO of the value-added tax; and

Each disposition of the global income tax OOO for the year 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a “CC” computer from September 20, 2010 to November 26, 2013.

DD(GD) upon reporting the value-added tax for the first quarter of 201, which is engaged in the wholesale and retail business of parts.

The purchase amount of the OO (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase amount of this case") was deducted as the input tax amount.

B. On December 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW 844,240,932 of the purchase amount of the instant case regarding the purchase amount as a disguised purchase, deeming the OOwon as a disguised purchase. The Defendant excluded the OO of the processing sales from the tax base, thereby excluding the OO of the processing sales arising from the processing purchase. As for the Plaintiff on December 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW OO of the value-added tax for the first period of 201 and that of the global income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the foregoing and filed an objection on February 13, 2013 with the Tax Tribunal on June 26, 2013.

Although the above claim was filed for adjudication, it was dismissed on November 1, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff paid the price for computer parts to DD and supplied computer parts from DD, the transaction between the Plaintiff and DD constitutes a normal transaction. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant purchase amount constitutes a processing purchase amount or a disguised purchase amount is unlawful.

2) Even if the transaction between the Plaintiff and DD constitutes a disguised transaction, the Plaintiff may do so.

Inasmuch as such facts were not known, and there was no negligence on the part of others, disguiseds.

input tax amount shall be deducted as input tax amount.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) Diplomatic retail business for computers and peripheral devices from December 27, 2010 to June 30, 2011

Added Tax Return for the first quarter of 201 of DD was conducted, and the details of DD's declaration are as follows:

According to the above report, the purchase amount is all the fees for open markets, and DD is 2011

The value-added tax was not paid for each year.

2) The place of business of DD was 'Seoul X-gu XX- XX, 2', but the above real estate.

Kim XX, a lessor, prepared the following certificates of February 2012:

3) The Kim XX, the representative of the EEE (hereinafter referred to as “EEE”) was made a statement to the following purport on May 12, 2012 after being investigated.

4) The door XX, who was an employee of the EEE, was investigated on March 15, 2012 and for the following purposes:

was stated.

5) The Plaintiff’s report of value-added tax for the first period of January 201 is as follows. According to the above report, approximately KRW OO is supplied by most of the members of the purchase price from XXN (OOO), Doz (OO) and DoD (OOO). The purchase price of XX and Doz is wholly supplied by DoDD.

6) 김XX이 인출한 수표 중에서OOO원은 원고의 매출처 XXXX테크에, OOO원은 원고의 매출처 이노XXX에, OOO원은 원고의 매출처 OOO스의 재매출처 OOO씨에, OOO원은 원고의 매출처 클OOO의 재매출처 에이OOO에 각 송금되었는데, EEEE 및 DDDD가 2011년 1기에 위 업체들과 거래한 이력은 존재하지 아니한다.

7) Part of the goods supplied to the Plaintiff by DDR is the consignor’s “EE” or “E” on the invoice; or

The goods supplied to the Plaintiff by DDDD to the Plaintiff were sent to the Plaintiff by entering the consignor’s address into the place of business “EE” or “FFF” on the invoice.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul in the evidence of paragraphs 3 through 10, 12 through 19, the whole pleadings

purport of this chapter

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

Article 1 (1) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act") provides for "the supply of goods subject to value-added tax", and Article 6 (1) provides for "the supply of goods" as all contractual or legal sources.

Article 6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods by a person shall be made," and in light of the fact that the value-added tax has the characteristics as a multi-stage transaction tax, Article 6.

"Delivery or transfer" referred to in paragraph (1) includes all acts of causing the transfer of authority to use and consume goods, regardless of the existence of benefits actually acquired;

In such cases, among any series of transactions, the public offering of goods prescribed by the former Value-Added Tax Act;

whether a transaction constitutes a grade or not, depending on each transaction, the purpose, circumstance, mode, and profit of the transaction;

individual and specific determination by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the subject of attribution and the payment relationship of consideration.

such specific transaction is a nominal transaction on which no substantial delivery or transfer of the goods is made.

on the ground that the tax invoice received in the course of the transaction is denied the input tax deduction.

The burden of proof on the fact that Article 17 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act corresponds to a "tax invoice different from the fact" is the principle that the tax authority bears the burden.

The following circumstances are revealed in addition to the above evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings. ① The purchase amount of DD's 201 sales amount reaches approximately KRW 1O0,000, while DD's 201 is limited to KRW 00,000, and it appears that DD did not have any goods to be supplied to other companies during the first period of 2011. ② The business site of DD was Seoul X-gu X 1x and 2, but the lessor's use of office work site of the above real estate was almost almost not stated, ③ The Kim & 100,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000.

2) Determination on the second argument

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not 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 name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove the fact that the supplier was not negligent (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

In light of the following circumstances: ① according to the Plaintiff’s husband and the actual operation of “CC” from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005, electronic commerce in Open Market; from April 7, 2008 to November 30, 2013, it appears that the Plaintiff was well aware of the actual condition of the transaction of computers and peripheral devices by running computer and peripheral devices at the e-mail shop; ② the part of the goods supplied to the Plaintiff by DDD was delivered to the Plaintiff as “EEE” or “FF”; ② the Plaintiff’s purchase amount of the goods supplied to DDDDD to the Plaintiff was without any knowledge of the shipper’s address or the Plaintiff’s purchase amount of the goods supplied to the Plaintiff as “OEF or the Plaintiff’s D1”; ② the Plaintiff’s purchase amount of the goods supplied to DDDD to the Plaintiff was without any reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was not aware of the Plaintiff’s purchase amount of the goods supplied to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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

The decision shall be rendered as above.