Fraudulent or other unlawful acts to apply 10 years of the exclusion period of national taxes;

In order to be subject to the exclusion period of imposition for the ten-year period of imposition, there should be awareness that the taxpayer is entitled to deduct the input tax amount by evading the liability for the payment of value-added tax on the tax invoice, resulting in a decrease in the national tax revenue.

Articles 17 and 22 of the Added Tax Act

2016Guhap105472 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○○○○ Corporation

The Director of the National Tax Service

March 23, 2017

May 11, 2017

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 648,00 of value-added tax for 1 December 1, 2015 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2008, KRW 114,857,400 of value-added tax for 2008, and KRW 22,39,680 of value-added tax for 2010 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on November 1, 2007 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling pulco-rating, importing and selling plastic additives and processed raw materials, exporting and importing and selling recyclable chemical products, and selling and selling them, and whose head office is located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu.

B. Upon receipt of the notice from the Director of Busan Regional Tax Office that the Plaintiff traded false tax invoices, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice of KRW 32,400,00 for the supply price of KRW 100 during the value-added tax period of KRW 100,00 for KRW 208, KRW 200 for KRW 490,560,00 for each of the two taxable periods of value-added tax ("bbbb") and the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice of KRW 40,00 for KRW 10,00 for KRW 20 for each of 20,000 for KRW 10,000 for value-added tax (hereinafter "CC"), and the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice of KRW 574,00,000 for KRW 20 for each of the 20,000 for value-added tax (hereinafter "ddd 19,400,000 for each of the 20,000 for each of the 20.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff argues that each of the dispositions of this case, based on the premise that the above transaction was disguised or false, is unlawful, since it was actually traded with 'abeta, bb, cb, c, dd, e., and e., 'abeta, bb, c, d, e.,'. Even if each of the tax invoices of this case is false, each of the dispositions of this case has

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form is as specified in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice is acknowledged as follows according to the respective entries and arguments in Gap's Nos. 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 15, and Eul's Nos. 3 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) Common part of each tax invoice of this case

(A) As of December 31, 2009, cc’s representative director fff holds 100% of e’s equity interest, and ee owns 74.18% of d’s equity interest. (b) around March 2013, ccc’s inventory assets as an inspector for the case of applying for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, are 1,53.3 billion won of ccc’s inventory assets. The amount of inventory assets confirmed through the reexamination is 7.5 billion won of cc’s inventory assets. The amount of inventory assets confirmed through the reexamination was 7.5 billion won of c’s inventory assets, and are managed as strategic inventory for such inventory assets.The strategic inventory presented an opinion that, in the past, e.g., re-Packing defective goods and returned goods, e., e., e., e., e.g., scalium, potium, waste dust, products and raw materials.

(C) The employees of e and e and directors of dddd shall, under the direction of ○fff, supply dd's actual and other products to the customer in order to maintain or increase the sales of ccc and carry out transactions in the form of purchasing them again. At this time, ○○ Customer shall determine gg as the representative director of ddd' (No. 5-4, 8), ○ hhh Hh, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “hhh”), carrying the products used for the above transactions, while replacing the labels of the products used for the above transactions in order to foster the actual and external forms (No. 4-15 of evidence No. 4, No. 5-11 of evidence No. 5). The products used for the above transactions have been transferred to d'd' (No. 6-7 of evidence No. 5). The customer made no specific statement for c'5 of the business operation mentioned above.

(2) The portion of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to abeta interview

(A) On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff, upon the introduction of dd’s employees, drafted a sales contract with a view to selling agents (EB) 2,400 g (EB) to KRW 32,400,000.

(B) The Plaintiff did not have any contact or contact with AAbes beauty officers and employees in the process of concluding the above sales contract, supplying a picture and issuing a tax invoice, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff visited the office, factory, or warehouse of Abesstossstosstostos to whom a copy of the business registration certificate of Aabestostos to be received from D’s employees.

(C) The Plaintiff was aware of the end of dB’s use of diversity (EB) and accordingly supplied diversity (EB) directly to divers other than a diversity interview.

(3) The portion of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from BB

(A) DD was engaged in a direct transaction with BB, such as having been issued a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 5.5 billion from BB during the period of the value-added tax for the two taxable periods of the value-added tax of 208.

(B) At the time, the Plaintiff’s head office is located in thecheon, and DD’s head office was located in the Kimhae-si, and BB’s head office was located in the Gyeongnam-si.

(C) The Plaintiff received a request from DD’s employees to purchase and supply BB, and accordingly, purchased and supplied BB from bB to dD, and did not check the quality, quantity, etc. of the product by opening the net bB package box received from bB while supplying them to bD.

(D) When the Plaintiff supplied the list to DD, the vehicle used was also placed in DD.

(4) The portion of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to CC issued to Dd, E

(A) At the time, the head office of the Plaintiff is located in thecheon, and the ccc factory was located in the old city, the dd's head office in the old city, and Kim Sea.

(B) The Plaintiff received a request from cccccc to purchase and supply dd and e with d and e with the purchase of the special pen from d and d and e with d and supplied d and e with ccc to d and d and e with the purchase of the special pen box, without confirming the quality, quantity, etc. of the product by opening the d and e with ccc to d and d and e, replacement of the labels of the above package box. There is no fact that there was no fact that the sales contract, the supply of the special pen, and the issuance of the tax invoice with e and its officers and employees.

(C) The company transporting the PDP special pen from CC to the Plaintiff is Hh, and the vehicles used by the Plaintiff when supplying DDP special pen to Dd and Ee have been discharged from D.

B) According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, and 16, Fff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition against the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax defect) by stating that 574,00,000 won was issued from the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office without any real transaction to the plaintiff. In order to increase the sales of ccccc from the Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office, it is recognized that the actual operator of a Abebes interview was issued 32,40,000 won by the plaintiff without any real transaction.

However, the administrative judgment is not bound by the prosecutor's disposition of non-prosecution, but can sufficiently recognize the facts opposed thereto by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu493, Oct. 26, 1987). In other words, the following circumstances, which the plaintiff could have known by the overall purport of the facts and arguments, such as ① the plaintiff did not have any contact with a Abes interview in transactions with a Abes, and directly supplied DD with its main office without having any direct contact with DD, ② The bbb and D have been in direct transactions with each other, and its main office has been so far as the plaintiff actually supplied the goods at the time of the sale of the goods without having any direct verification of the goods traded by the plaintiff as the intermediary, ③ d and d e d d d d d d e e d e e e e e e s e e e s e e s e se e se e se se se se se se se se se se se se s.

Therefore, each tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice different from the fact.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the exclusion period has expired

In a case where a taxpayer prepares a false tax invoice and receives an input tax deduction or refund by a false tax invoice received accordingly, such an act constitutes “where a taxpayer evades national taxes, or obtains refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means” under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010) and thus, the exclusion period for imposition of ten years shall apply to the taxpayer. In addition to the awareness that the taxpayer is entitled to receive an input tax deduction or refund by a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff should be aware that the taxpayer would have obtained a deduction of the input tax amount by either notifying or paying the tax base and the amount of the value-added tax except for the amount of the input tax on the tax invoice, or filing a request for correction by all the amount of the input tax on the tax invoice and filing a false tax invoice, and that the Plaintiff was not aware that there was a decrease in the amount of the input tax on the tax invoice and the amount of the input tax on the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, and if so, each disposition of this case is unlawful as it is against the exclusion period of imposition.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.