Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

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

A. On January 23, 2002, the Plaintiff was a corporation established for the purpose of running the manufacturing, wholesale, retail, etc. of clothing. The Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 89,020,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) in the aggregate as indicated below from ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “small and Medium Enterprise”).

No.

Classification

Date

Items

Value of Supply

1

1, 2005

may 12, 2005

original group

41,350,000

2

〃 4

June 9, 2005

〃 4

47,670,000

Total

89,020,000

B. On July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) deducted the input tax amount of KRW 8,902,000 from the output tax amount; (b) reported the value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount of KRW 8,902,00 from the output tax amount; and (c) filed a corporate tax return on March 31, 2006,

C. From January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, the head of the Seocho District Tax Office conducted an investigation into a person suspected of being suspected of being suspected of having been suspected of having been investigated into the data against the non-party business. As a result, it was confirmed that the instant tax invoice was due to a processing transaction and notified the Defendant thereof.

D. Accordingly, on March 2, 2007, the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount when calculating the value-added tax, and did not deduct the said value of supply when calculating the corporate tax, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 12,244,70 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2005 and corporate tax of KRW 27,961,980 for the business year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 4 and 5, Eul evidence 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff actually purchased the headquarters from the non-party company and received it fairly, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without real transactions, is unlawful solely on the ground that the non-party company was accused of the fact that the non-party company was merely a material.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Around 1990, the former owner was aware of Kim○-chul while working at the medical manufacturing industry. Around the end of December 2004, the former owner was unable to register his/her business in his/her name because he/she was a bad credit holder, but he/she was unable to register his/her business in his/her name. However, upon lending his/her business name to the former owner, the former owner was to establish an enterprise first in his/her name and run a business instead of tax treatment, etc., instead of tax treatment. Since one year thereafter, the former owner suggested that he/she did not change his/her business with an independent brand, and the former owner transferred his/her name and transferred his/her related documents.

(2) From February 28, 2005 to November 30, 2005, the former owner received a total of KRW 30,365,910 while working in ○○○○○○ Company, and from December 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, the former owner received a total of KRW 3,361,540 while working in ○○○○○○○ Company.

(3) Around June 15, 2006, the former owner issued a processed sales tax invoice by receiving an amount equivalent to 4% of the value of supply in addition to KRW 8,050,000 (transfered to the bank A bank account in the name of the former owner) among the sales 1.95,000,000 won of the non-party company’s sales 1.95,000 won, the non-party company exclusively operated the data from the non-party company around March 15, 2006. On July 25, 2006, the former owner stated to the effect that all of the non-party company received an amount equivalent to 8,050,000 won of the value of supply and issued the processed sales tax invoice, and that the act of the non-party 1 was known to him around March 2006. The former owner prepared a certificate of confirmation to the effect that the non-party company made a sample of KRW 53,875,00 among the sales in 205.

(4) Around December 27, 2006, the former owner drafted and submitted to the Plaintiff a written confirmation of the fact of transaction (Evidence 2) that between April 13, 2005 and June 9, 2005, the non-party company supplied the Plaintiff a set of KRW 89,034,000 in total value of supply (Evidence 2).

Date;

Name;

Specifications

Quantity

Value of supply (cost)

VAT (won)

April 13, 2005

original group

56"

70

21,560,000

2,156,000

may 12, 2005

〃 4

56"

560

12,880,000

1,288,000

May 19, 2005

〃 4

58"

810

7,938,000

793,800

may 26, 2005

〃 4

58"

432

5,616,00

561,600

June 9, 2005

〃 4

56"

1,520

41,040,000

4,104,00

Total

89,034,000

8,903,400

In addition, around January 3, 2007, the Plaintiff appeared in the Seocho tax secretary book and denied the fact of transaction between the non-party company and the Plaintiff due to the business closing and fireation with Kim ○ and the Plaintiff. However, this was a false statement due to the personal appraisal with Kim○-chul, and the transaction in this case was made by preparing a self-written confirmation statement (Evidence 4) to the effect that the transaction in this case is actual transaction.

(5) However, in addition to the non-party company, the former ○ made an investment of KRW 50 million and KRW 55 million, respectively, with the investment of KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 55,000 to ○○dong, which led to a dispute. In the process of concluding an agreement thereafter, the former ○○ testified to the effect that the said statement of transactions (Evidence 2) and the written statement of confirmation of the fact of transactions (Evidence 4) are required by Kim ○○ even in the process of making an agreement, and thus, he testified to the effect that it was prepared and made without taking any particular issue about its content.

(6) On September 15, 2005, the Plaintiff remitted 36 million won to one bank B account under the name of Jeonju, and 8.5 million won on October 7, 2005, respectively. In the future, the Plaintiff issued each promissory note of KRW 1,639,00 on October 27, 2005, par value of KRW 1,639,000 on November 14, 2005, par value of KRW 2,189,00 on November 14, 2005, and KRW 15,145,000 on December 15, 2005.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, 4, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1 through 3, Gap evidence 8, 9, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 7-1, 8, 8 through 10, witness testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. As such, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. If the defendant establishes considerable degree of proof as to this point to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to dispute the illegality of the defendant's disposition to present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) Regarding the instant case: (a) the Plaintiff offered that the instant tax invoice was the actual transaction and that the instant transaction was not processed; (b) the document confirming the actual transaction of the former transaction (Evidence A2) and the document confirming the transaction of the instant tax invoice (Evidence A4) are inconsistent with the transaction details and supply value stated in the instant tax invoice; and (c) it is difficult to believe that the instant transaction was conducted only during the first period of 2005 with the Nonparty company; (b) even if the instant tax invoice was signed and delivered by the Nonparty company, it is difficult to view the instant transaction as a normal transaction; (c) the Plaintiff did not present any evidence proving that the instant tax invoice was actually supplied by the Nonparty company, such as the details of the instant tax invoice; and (d) the Plaintiff did not have any evidence proving that the instant tax invoice was issued by the Nonparty company 1 to the extent that there was a lack of reasonable evidence to prove the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, including the instant tax invoice, on the ground that there was a lack of evidence to prove the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders 1.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful, and the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is rejected as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition.