early 2012 Middle 2234 (25. 2012.06)

No good faith or negligence of the plaintiff may be recognized when the supplier of Dong Scbyps receives a false tax invoice different from the fact stated falsely.

It is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice falls under the false tax invoice of the scoo-tra supplier; the Plaintiff has been engaged in the scrap metal wholesale business for at least five years; or the Plaintiff has been negligent in failing to conduct an investigation, even though it was necessary to investigate whether the actual supplier of the goods was aware of or is the actual supplier of the goods.

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AA metal Co., Ltd.

the director of the tax office of Western

February 1, 2013

February 15, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period of February 6, 2012 against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 3, 2003, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices as listed below (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from DaD, the representative of 'CC resources, as a corporation engaged in scrap metal wholesale business from around 000, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and as a representative of 'CC resources,” and received the deduction by reporting it as input tax amount at the time of the return of the value-added tax for the second period of 2008.

(The following table omitted):

B. On February 6, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notice (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of value-added tax amount of KRW 000 for the second period of February 2008 (including the said tax) on the grounds that the instant tax invoice for the Plaintiff is different from the fact that the supplier is not subject to the input tax deduction because it is different from the fact.

C. On May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 25, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, the non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 2, 4, and 9, and Eul 1, and the purport of the entire argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case must be revoked on the grounds that there are illegal causes as follows:

1) The Plaintiff: (a) actually purchased ice rap fromCC resources (DD); and (b) received each of the instant tax invoices; and (c) each of the instant tax invoices is not a false tax invoice for the supplier.

2) Even if the supplier of each of the tax invoices in this case is different from the facts, the Plaintiff received a copy of the business registration certificate and passbook fromCC resources (DD) and confirmed the identity card of D, and calculated the price by inspecting the quantity and quality of dynamics in which D has been loaded, and then remitted the price to the financial account of D. The Plaintiff is a bona fide trader.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The transaction of and payment for the dynamics of the Plaintiff andCC resources (DD)

A) On August 2008, the Plaintiff received a copy of the business registration certificate and passbook from the representative Dodd, confirmed the identity card of Dodd, and the business registration certificate includes “place of business: OO-dong 000 (hereinafter referred to as “instant registered business place”) and type of business: type of business: type of business - wholesale and retail, and - scrap and non- iron.”

B) On August 20, 2008 and September 29, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the same scooby-traps from DaD which was carrying the same scoops at the Plaintiff’s workplace, and received each of the trade specifications issued by MaA (DD) and each of the tax invoices of this case.

C) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the purchase of goods with this D name as the financial coordinate of this D name, the amount of KRW 00 on September 27, 2008, and KRW 00 on September 29, 2008, and KRW 000 on October 1, 2008, and KRW 000 on October 30, 2008, and KRW 000 on November 27, 2008, and the amount of KRW 200 on November 27, 2008, which was sent to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2009 by the said court, upon serving the Plaintiff with the recommendation decision on performance recommendation on January 12, 2009.

2) Results of the material research of the Central Regional Tax Office with respect toCC resources (DD)

A) The purchase amount (supply price) in the year 2008 ofCC resource(DD) was 000 won and sales (supply price) was 000 won and 000 won out of the purchase amount was the processing purchase without real trade, and the remaining 000 won (=00 won -000 won) was the representative of the “BB” purchased, but only the purchase tax invoice was confirmed to be the disguised purchase received under the name ofCC resource (DD).

(B) 00 won was remitted from the seller, and 000 won was deposited in cash, and 000 won was remitted again to the borrowed-name account or the financial account of the lender of the consignor of the dispatchingA, and 000 won was immediately deposited in cash.

C) The main contents of the last sentence in relation to this case against D are as follows:

(Major Contents Omitted)

D) Of the sales offices ofCC resources (DD), the representative of the border metal, at the time of the investigation, stated that “Although there was a transaction with BB (A) that it was actually conducted with the Plaintiff, the representative received the tax invoice in the name ofCC resources (DD) at the request of Song.”

3) The result of accusation and criminal procedure against D.

A) On the basis of the facts described in the above 2, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office accused DoD to the prosecution on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and DoD was prosecuted for violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter “the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act”) by the Suwon District Court.

B) On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff was convicted on the charge that “the Defendant (the Defendant referred to as “D”, and the same shall apply hereinafter) in relation to the above case in collusion with Song, received a false tax invoice of an amount equivalent to the total amount of KRW 000 from August 21, 2008 to November 4, 2008, and received a false tax invoice of an amount equivalent to the total amount of KRW 000 from the supply from August 21, 2008, and received a deduction of KRW 38,365,140 as if it actually purchased the above amount of KRW 00 in the Goyangyang Tax Office around January 28, 2009.”

C) AD was acquitted on the ground that “A” only allowed A to operate the business in the name ofCC resources upon the request of A.A., and that the receipt of false tax invoices and the act of evading value-added tax was not involved in the act independently conducted by A.A., the Seoul High Court appealed as Seoul High Court 2011No196, and on August 25, 2011, the above court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the ground that “the Defendant is not deemed to have conspired to commit the above suspected crime with A.A. and there is no proof of a crime.”

D) Song testified to the effect that it was present as a witness in the above case No. 2011No196, and that “DD was a representative in its name after the end of June 2008, and it was fully responsible for its operation, and that it was also under the direct custody of the name or official seal necessary for the issuance of the tax invoice forCC resource (D).”

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, the entries in Gap 3 through 9, and 15, and the entries in Eul 2 through 8, and 10 through 14, and the whole purport of the pleading.

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 16(1) and Article 17(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915 of Jan. 1, 2010) provide that input tax shall not be deducted from output tax amount if the tax invoice is not entered or entered differently from the fact that the actual name or name of the business operator who supplies the tax invoice, the supply price and the date of preparation, and the matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and that the necessary entry in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act is different from the actual entry in the transaction agreement between the parties to the goods or services, and that the tax invoice is not entered in the invoice. (See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617 delivered on Dec. 10, 196, and that the invoice was not entered in the invoice.).

(1) If a supplier and another supplier on the tax invoice were not aware of the actual name of the supplier, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier would not be entitled to deduction or refund of the input tax invoice. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 200) The supplier would have been unaware of the actual name of the supplier, and that the supplier would not have been aware of the need for deduction or refund of the input tax invoice. (See Supreme Court Decision 200Du277, Jun. 28, 200), and that there was no other evidence that the supplier would have known of the actual name of the supplier, such as the actual name of the supplier, and that the supplier would have known of the need for tax invoice and the actual name of the supplier. (See Supreme Court Decision 200Du406, supra, the Plaintiff would not be found to have been negligent on the part of the supplier’s business invoice and its actual name of the supplier, and that there was no other evidence that the supplier would have known of the actual name of the manufacturer’s.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.