Whether the person who received the supply was not aware of the fact of false name or not;

The Plaintiff did not know that the name of the supplier of the instant tax invoice was different from that of the actual supplier, and was negligent in not knowing such fact as the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care in the transaction.

2013Guhap2387 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AA Trade Co., Ltd

BB Director of the Tax Office

January 21, 2014

February 18, 2014

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first term of January 201, 201 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012 is revoked in entirety, 200 won, corporate tax for the year 201, corporate tax for the year 201, and 220 won.

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;

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, 10, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 4-1 and 2.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron, using 79X as its place of business under BB at BB, and received one tax invoice (the supply price of 115, commercial class, 000, value-added tax 11, 100, 100, hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) from EE that is registered under the trade name “DDDD” during the taxable period of value-added tax for the first year of 201, and reported the tax amount payable for value-added tax for the first year of 201, after deducting the input tax amount of 11, commercial class, and 100, from the output tax amount for the said tax invoice, and reported the corporate tax for the year 201, which included the said input tax amount in the deductible expenses.

B. From September 15, 2011 to November 8, 2011, the FF regional tax office conducted a tax investigation on DDR, deeming that the instant tax invoice was a processed tax invoice issued without a real transaction, and notified the Defendant of the relevant taxation data. The Defendant determined that a supplier, which is the necessary entry item of the instant tax invoice, was written differently from the facts on the basis of the aforementioned taxation data, based on the relevant taxation data, and subsequently, on June 1, 2012, the FF branch office issued a correction and notification (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2011 by deducting the relevant input tax amount and imposing an additional tax pursuant to the disbursement evidence collection.

C. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 5, 2013.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was unaware of the fact that DD is a disguised business operator at the time of transaction with DD, and confirmed the identity of DDD's business registration, 1, and representative E. ② visited the location of the place of business and taken photographs, ③ was issued a tax invoice while receiving DD's direct scrap metal from E, ④ transferred the price to E's account, ④ was transferred through ES's agent, ⑤ was negligent in failing to know that DD was a disguised business operator.

Therefore, the input tax deduction pursuant to the instant tax invoice cannot be denied, and the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings and images of evidence Nos. 5-1, 7, 10, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-1, 7, 10, 11, and 12.

1) On March 21, 201, 201, DDD was registered as a business entity that runs the scrap metal wholesale and retail business with its place of business under XX-1, GG 9 XX-1, and closed its business on June 13, 201, and the total amount of the sales tax invoice issued during the above period was KRW 11,00,000, on the other hand, it did not have been issued a tax invoice for its purchase. On March 201, 201, EE, the representative of the business, was terminated the lease on the grounds of overdue rent by paying only one rent after concluding the lease contract for the land specified in the above place of business, and EE, the representative of the business, was a person who had not been engaged in the scrap metal and retail business prior to the opening of DD business and has no income and assets.

2) In addition, Kim II and Kim J established DoDD under the name of the EE, after purchasing DoDD with non-data and selling it to the customer, the FF District Court [2011 High Court Decision, 2011 High Court Decision, 2012No. 201; hereinafter referred to as FF High Court Decision] and the appellate court (hereinafter referred to as the FF High Court) were convicted of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds of the crime of evading the payment of value-added tax by issuing the false sales tax invoice under the name of DoD and allowing DoD to impose value-added tax on ES who has no intent and ability to pay value-added tax as if DoD supplied the scrap metal to the customer. The above conviction was finalized after withdrawing the appeal.

3) On July 28, 2008, the Plaintiff started wholesale and retail business. Upon receiving a proposal from the firstman on April 201, 201, the Plaintiff received the business registration certificate and the identification card of EE, a representative, from the DNA side, and confirmed the sales of waste electric wires.

4) On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the above waste cables, and visited the place of business of DD on a direct basis, and confirmed the signboards, relays, trucks, and open storages of the photographs of DD, and stored them.

5) 원고는 자신의 사업장에서 차량(서울87아XXXX)을 통하여 EEE로부터 직접 폐전선 18,XXXkg을 수령하고, 계근대에서 폐전선의 실중량을 확인한 후 인수량을 확정하는 절차를 거쳐 공급가액을 확정하여 계량확인서를 작성하였고, 여기에 차량번호를 기재해 두었다.

6) On the day when the Plaintiff was issued a tax invoice, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 126, 100 (supply value 115, 115, 100 + value-added 11, 100 + value-added 11, 100) to the Agricultural Cooperative under the EE’s name using the purchase price on the instant tax invoice.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

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 nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

However, in the case of waste resources, since it cannot be deemed that the other party is a disguised business entity due to the nature of the distribution structure and transaction, there is a duty to actively investigate whether the other party is a disguised business entity. Thus, there is sufficient reason to suspect the other party as a disguised business entity in light of the facts revealed in the process of collecting data to determine whether the other party is a qualified business entity. However, the other party’s failure to know that the other party is a disguised business entity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7660, Sept.

2) Whether there is good faith and negligence

The following facts revealed in the above facts: (a) the Plaintiff was making considerable efforts to verify whether the Plaintiff is actually engaged in the scrap metal trade in the process of purchasing the waste wire from DD; (b) the Plaintiff received the waste cable and made efforts to verify that the actual goods have been transported by EE instructions; (c) the Plaintiff transferred the price normally by the passbook in the name of E; and (d) the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to presume that the transaction method was abnormal, such as (i) the Plaintiff’s supply of a large quantity of waste electric wires to reduce transaction costs or to take special benefits; and (v) in the case of waste resources such as the waste electric wire subject to the transaction in this case, it is difficult to verify whether the intermediate supplier directly traded is a normal company; and (ii) the Plaintiff did not know that the intermediate supplier purchased the waste electric wire; and (ii) the Plaintiff did not bear any strict duty of care in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is unreasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not have any negligence.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.