Whether it is a party to a transaction of false tax invoices and negligence in duty of ship;

It is true that the name of the supplier of the tax invoice of this case is different from the actual supplier, but it is difficult to see that there was negligence in the absence of such knowledge. Thus, the disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Tax Invoice)

2016Guhap10263 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

000 Stock Company

00. Head of tax office

February 22, 2017

on October 08, 2017

1. The defendant's value-added tax imposed on the plaintiff on March 2, 2015 6,5,528,16,375,470 won for the second term of 2010, 116,470 won for the first term of 2011, 224,443,860 won for the second term of 2012, 203,683,860 won for the second term of 2013, 152,387,230 won for the second term of 20, 2013, 207, 206, 2364, 205, 207, 206, 364, 205, 207, 207, 236, 201, 36, 204, 36, 204, 207, 207, 36, 2017, 36, 204.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1997. 2. 15.경 개업하여 2008. 7. 1.경부터 현재까지 00 ##군 @@면 $$리 155-4에서 고철 도매업을 영위하는 회사로, 아래 표 기재와 같이 매입처들(이하 '이 사건 매입처들'이라 한다)로부터 고철을 매수하고(이하 '이 사건 고철거래'라 한다) 총 134회에 걸쳐 합계 4,033,651,000원의 세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 한다)를 각 수취한 후, 각 사업연도 부가가치세 신고시 매출세액에서 이 사건 세금계산서상의 매입금액을 공제하여 신고하였다.

- - Future -

EE 2 22 378,925,000 won in 2013

FFFF "14 402,139,550 won

Total 134 KRW 4,03,650,340

B. From November 11, 2014 to January 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the instant purchaser without real transactions; (b) denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction on the instant tax invoice; and (c) applied the penalty tax for receiving evidentiary documents to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2015; (d) KRW 7,647,850 on February 2, 2010; and (e) KRW 136,975,330 on January 2, 201; (e) KRW 5,257,210 on February 2, 201, KRW 268,745,280 on February 2, 2012; and (e) KRW 268,745,280 on December 36, 2013; and (e) KRW 13636,310 on May 28, 2013; and (e) KRW 2013636,4136.

C. On May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 27, 2015. On December 31, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the amount of value-added tax imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff by applying the general under-reported penalty tax, not the unfair under-reported penalty tax, and that the remainder of the claims are dismissed on the ground that it is not reasonable. Accordingly, on January 21, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision to impose value-added tax on the Plaintiff by applying the general under-reported penalty tax to the amount of value-added tax for February 6, 2010, 6,528,16,116,375,470, the amount of value-added tax for January 21, 201, 20, 200, 203, 204,824,683, 860, 2013, 231, 2015, 20138.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 14, 15 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff, while actually purchasing scrap metal from the instant purchaser, paid the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the proceeds from the supply of the instant tax invoice in a normal manner, and there is no clear evidence that the instant tax invoice is merely merely merely against the instant purchaser-oriented business. Therefore, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant tax invoice on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know that the instant purchaser was merely a disguised business, and fulfilled its duty of due care in doing transactions with the instant purchaser, and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The instant scrap metal transaction was made in the form that the Plaintiff did not receive scrap metal, and was directly supplied from the instant purchasing entity to the Plaintiff’s seller, GGGGG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GGGGG”). With respect to the supply of scrap metal, GGG confirmed the final purchase price according to the sales price determined in advance following quality inspection and weight confirmation procedures, and the Plaintiff traded the purchase price of the final scrap metal to the instant purchasing entity.

2) The summary of the result of the tax investigation conducted by the director of the tax office on AAA (%) is that the workplace located in the 00th of the 00th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 209 lease contract was difficult to enter the 2009, and that the 200th of the 209 lease contract was not used as the place of business. Of the purchasing agencies of AA, a large number of the 90% of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 90th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 90th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the 3nd of the H.

3) The summary of the results of the tax investigation on BB(%) conducted by the director of the tax office 00 on BB(%) is as follows: “BB’s * The place of business where the vehicle is difficult to enter, and there was no basic facility building for carrying on the scrap metal wholesale business, such as relays and vehicles, at the place of business. BBB did not submit sufficient explanatory materials related to the details of the transaction conducted with the buyer in the course of the tax investigation.”

The Plaintiff received a business registration certificate and the copy of the passbook III from BB, and visited and confirmed the relevant place of business on January 4, 201 and January 12, 201, and thereafter traded high-speed sales amounting to KRW 686,662,740 between January 19, 201 and January 28, 201. The Plaintiff transferred the purchase price to the account in the name of III on the date of transaction or the following day, and on February 1, 2011, the value-added tax was transferred to the account in the name of III. On the other hand, the prosecution issued a disposition of suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against III related to the said transaction.

4) The main point of the result of the tax investigation of DDD (hereinafter referred to as DDD) conducted by the director of the tax office is "DDDD (hereinafter referred to as DDDD)'s place of business located in DDD Seoul, and DDDD is a place where it can not be deemed that the business establishment located in DDDD has engaged in the scrap metal business." DDD (hereinafter referred to as DDD) has a typical form of transaction, such as withdrawing it in cash immediately after deposit from the sales office or remitting it to the JJJ, Co., Ltd., Ltd., which appears to be material. After receiving the business registration certificate and the copy of the passbook from DDD on October 17, 201, the Plaintiff deposited the purchase price with DDDD on October 18, 201, and deposited the Plaintiff's respective charges related to DD (DD)'s respective transactions in the name of the prosecutor's office.

5) The summary of the result of the tax investigation into the head office located in the director of the Regional Tax Office of 00 (hereinafter referred to as "CCCC") did not actually have been used, and the type of transaction is typical data. KK, the representative director of the place of business, claimed that it operated a business in the e-mail-Eup 709-8 of the e-mail-type e-mail-type e-mail-type e-mail-type e-mail-type 709-8. However, as confirmed by the lessor of the place of business, the place of business was leased from April 2012 to the district resource (PP), and on February 21, 2013, the tenant was requested to change the lease contract from the district resource to the CCC. The Plaintiff received a copy of the business registration certificate and passbook from the CCC and deposited the purchase price in the name of the head office and the head office and the head office and the head office and the head office and the head office and the head office and the head office and the head office on July 296, 296.

6) The summary of the result of the tax investigation on the CCC branch by the director of the tax office is that the lessee was leased from around April 2012 to MCC. From around February 21, 2013, the lease agreement for the lessee from June 25, 2012 to June 25, 2013 is retroactively made, and the type of transaction is typical data. The Plaintiff received from the CCC a business registration certificate for branch offices (the opening business of August 31, 2012) on October 4, 2012 from the CCC to visit the branch offices and confirmed it, and deposited the sales price in the name of the CCC from October 16, 2012 to October 31, 207, and then deposited the sales price in the name of the CCC from October 23, 2012 to June 27, 2013, respectively.

7) 00세무서장의 EEEE(###)에 대한 세무조사 결과의 요지는 'EEEE의 ** 소재 사업장은 임대차계약만 체결되었을 뿐, 그곳 야적장은 이상복이 운영하는 NNNN에서 사용하였고, 그 거래형태가 전형적인 자료상의 거래형태를 띄고 있다'는 것이다. 원고는 EEEE으로부터 사업자등록증, 통장사본, 야적장 임대차계약서를 받고, 2013. 6. 24.경 그 사업장을 방문하여 확인한 후 2013. 7. 1.경부터 2013. 10. 24.경까지 총 378,925,490원의 고철매입 거래를 하였고, 각 거래 당일 내지 익일에 그 매입대금 및 부가가치세를 VVV 명의 계좌로 입금하였다.

8) The summary of the result of the tax investigation conducted by the commissioner of the regional tax office with respect to the FFF (hereinafter referred to as “FFFF”) is that “The FFF, the telegraphic body of the FF, is an enterprise identified and accused in the data as a result of the tax investigation conducted by the regional tax office 00 and continued the same transaction as the existing one after changing the name of the legal entity into the FF on August 9, 2013.” The Plaintiff received a business registration certificate and passbook from the FF, visited the place of business from August 24, 2013 to September 26, 2013, after visiting the place of business, confirmed the transaction of 402,139,550 won in total from August 24, 2013 to September 26, 2013.” The Plaintiff deposited the purchase price and value-added tax in the name of the FFF account on the day or following day of each transaction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 16, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter “former Value-Added Tax Act”) and Article 39(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the input tax amount in a case where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. In such a case, the meaning that it is different from the fact is the subject of taxation. Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where there is a person to whom such entry in a tax invoice is in fact belongs, the person to whom such entry in the tax invoice is in fact belongs shall be the taxpayer and the person to whom the goods or services are actually supplied or who is supplied, and the other party to whom the tax invoice is presumed to have not satisfied the requirement of tax imposition in light of the empirical rule-based rule-based requirement, even if the other party to whom the tax invoice was actually supplied.

In light of the above facts and the purport of the argument as to this case, the purchaser of this case did not have any facilities to deem that the purchaser of this case did not operate or operated the solid steel wholesale business at the location of each business establishment. The purchaser of this case did not have any facilities to deem that the purchaser of this case did not issue a short-term high-term tax invoice, and that the purchaser of this case has a typical data transaction form, such as allowing the purchaser to withdraw in cash or immediately withdraw from cash when the price is deposited from the sales office, or transfer it to other data (in the case of some electronic tax invoices issued at the point of thisCCC and EE and FF, the number of computer IP and CPU unique number is consistent). Thus, it is reasonable to view that the supplier of scrap iron to the actual Plaintiff is a third party, not the purchaser of this case, and that the Plaintiff’s offering of scrap iron to the Plaintiff does not have any reason to deem that each of subparagraphs 5 through 16 constitutes a tax invoice of this case, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that this part of this case constitutes a different tax invoice.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a party to good faith and without fault

Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax shall not

The mere fact that there is no negligence on the part of the other party in the absence of the knowledge of the nominal representation should be proven by the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). However, since a person who is supplied goods or services is not obligated to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business operator, there is sufficient reason to suspect the other party as a disguised business operator when judging based on the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a qualified business operator. However, the other party is not aware of the fact that the other party is a disguised business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept. 30,

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health team, the above recognition facts, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 16, namely, considering the distribution process in which scrap metal subject to actual transactions are supplied directly to GGGG from the purchaser of this case without going through the plaintiff, the plaintiff is a daily scrap metal each time it purchases especially scrap metal.

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to find out that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to view that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was using the Plaintiff’s trade secret in the name of the Plaintiff’s business owner, and that it was difficult to expect the Plaintiff to receive the Plaintiff’s input price in the instant case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.