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

A. On September 2, 1998, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) received one tax invoice of KRW 39,008,200 (the supply price of KRW 35,461,99, value-added tax, KRW 3,546,199), and filed a tax invoice with the Defendant after deducting the amount of input tax at the time of filing a return on the tax base of value-added tax and corporate tax base from KRW 30,000,00 from 00,00,000, 3,000, 00,000 from 0-0, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and 00-0,000, 3,000, 000,000 from 0-0, 3,000, 000, 000,000).

B. On February 1, 2008, the Defendant determined that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice based on the findings of suspicion against the non-party company of the director of the tax office in Seodaemun-gu, and determined that it was a false tax invoice against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2008, the Defendant imposed a disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 3,546,199, and penalty tax of KRW 2,821,354, and added value-added tax of KRW 6,367,550 and value-added tax of KRW 39,08,198 in total on the supply value of the instant tax invoice, and deemed that the ownership is unclear after adding value-added tax to the value-added tax amount on the instant tax invoice, and issued a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this, after filing an objection on April 7, 2008, filed a request for an inquiry with the Tax Tribunal on June 5, 2008, but was dismissed on December 12, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 3, 7 through 10, Eul 1, 2, 5, 9 (including abnormal numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the non-party company received a certain fee without a real transaction and issued a processed tax invoice, the Plaintiff actually purchased gold bullion from the non-party company, and issued and received the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) Applicable legal principles

The burden of proving that a specific transaction constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact provided by Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where input tax deduction is denied on the ground that it is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008).

2) Facts of recognition

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement of Nos. 5 through 8 (including virtual numbers) with respect to the instant case, the director of the tax office in Seodaemun-gu has conducted an investigation into the material suspected of committing the crime against the non-party company during the period from April 29, 2003 to December 31, 2005, from March 5, 2001 to December 31, 2003. (2) As a result of the aforementioned investigation, the director of the tax office in Seodaemun-gu stated that the non-party company issued a purchase tax invoice of 82.02% of the total purchase amount from the ordinary exchange trade, etc. accused of the non-party company or tax evasion, and issued a sales tax invoice of 81.3% of the total sales amount to the non-party company and the non-party company issued the non-party company's 10% of the total sales amount to the non-party company and the non-party company's allegation that the non-party company was its actual representative.

(나) 그러나 갑 1 내지 6호증, 갑 7호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ㉮ 원고는 2003. 4.경 대양생명보험 주식회사(이하 '대양생명'이라 한다)와 사이에, 원고가 위 회사에 대하여 장기근속 행운의 열쇠(순금)와 케이스 144개(5돈 140개, 10돈 3개, 15돈 1개)를 합계 42,695,100원(부가가치세 포함, 단가 5돈 286,900원,10돈 562.800원, 15돈 840,700원)에 공급하기로 하는 '열쇠공급계약'을 체결한 사실, ㉯ 원고는 2003. 4. 14. 소외 회사로부터 금지금 2,793.75g을 합계 39,008,200원(단가 12,693.333, 부가가치세 3,546,199원 포함)에 매수하기로 하는 거래명세표와 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받은 후, 소외 회사의 우리은행 계좌로 39,008,200원을 무통장입금 한 사실, ㉰ 원고는 2003. 4. 15. 서울보증보험 주식회사와 사이에 위 열쇠공급 계약에 관하여 계약이행보증보험계약을 체결한 사실, ㉱ 대양생명은 2003. 4. 17. 원고에 대하여 장기근속 행운의 열쇠 144개를 인수받았다고 하는 인수증(갑 5호증)을 작성하여 준 사실, ㉲ 대양생명이 2003. 4. 21. 원고의 한미은행계좌로 42,695,100원을 입금한 사실, ㉳ 피고는 원고에 대한 부가가치세 과세표준을 산출함에 있어 원고가 위 장기근속 행운의 열쇠의 가공과 케이스의 제조를 부탁한 사업자들에 대한 공급가액('☆☆'이라는 상호의 사업자에 대한 876,000원과 '○○케이스'라는 상호의 사업자에 대한 440,000원)을 모두 매입세액으로 공제하여 준 사실이 인정된다.

3) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged in the above-mentioned (B) and all the following circumstances revealed in light of such facts, it is insufficient to recognize the instant tax invoice as a "tax invoice different from the facts issued and issued without a real transaction," and there is no evidence otherwise to deem that the instant tax invoice was false.

① As to the instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from the Nonparty Company, the data were kept to deposit the transaction price into the bank account of the Nonparty Company at the transaction date, and the data were submitted to sell the gold bullion purchased from the Nonparty Company in a normal manner [the same shall apply to gold bullion (745=50 + 100 + 10000 + 1500 + 15000 + 15000 + 2793.75g = 757.75g = 745 g/ money) in the transaction list that the Plaintiff received from the Nonparty Company];

② At the time of the non-party company being investigated into the data from the director of the Nam-gu Tax Office, the non-party company did not directly verify that the non-party company issued a false tax invoice to the plaintiff without real transactions, and it is insufficient to recognize the non-party company as being 10% of the material as being alleged by the defendant, considering all the materials presented in the argument in this case

③ In light of the Plaintiff’s trade under the instant tax invoice, which was only one-time transaction on April 14, 2003, and the Plaintiff’s business type and scale, etc., it is difficult to deem that the processing and sale of gold bullion purchased from the Nonparty Company to another is an exceptional transaction different from the ordinary gold bullion transaction.

④ The Defendant did not submit any evidence as to the place of use of the money, including whether the money paid by the Plaintiff to Nonparty Company was re-paid to the Plaintiff.

⑤ There is no evidence that the Plaintiff returned the gold bullion paid to the Nonparty Company again, and there is no reason to deem that the Plaintiff participated in, or was aware of, tax evasion by the Nonparty Company.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case, based on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice different from the actual transaction fact, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.