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

A. The Plaintiff, a business operator, who runs a machine tools wholesale and retail business with the trade name of ○○○-si ○○○○○-dong 2, 44-17, and ○○○○○-dong 2, operated a machine tools wholesale and retail business during the second taxable period of 1999, received a purchase tax invoice of 18 million won in total of the supply values (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from ○○○-si, as stated in the details of issuance of the tax invoice, during the second taxable period, and filed a value-added tax return for the said taxable

B. On July 1, 2005, the Defendant, on the so-called data, which is the company issuing a processing tax invoice without a real transaction, deducted the relevant input tax amount on the ground that the instant tax invoice received therefrom is a false tax invoice, and subsequently, on July 1, 2005, issued a correction and notice of KRW 6,576,000 for the second period of July 1, 2009 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the said amount was reduced to KRW 3,908,400 upon the Plaintiff’s filing of objection (hereinafter the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1-1

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff made an actual transaction with ○○○○○○ Company, and paid the transaction price as shown in the separate sheet payment, the instant tax invoice is consistent with the facts. Moreover, the exclusion period for imposition of the second-year value-added tax on January 24, 2005 is until January 24, 2005, and the instant disposition was made after the lapse of the exclusion period. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

[Valued Tax]

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

[Framework Act on National Taxes]

Article 26 (Extinguishment of Liability for Tax Payment)

The liability to pay national taxes, surcharges, or expenses for disposition on default shall be extinguished in any of the following cases:

2. When the period in which the national tax may be assessed under Article 26-2, expires without any assessment; and

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)

(1) National taxes may not be imposed after the expiration of the period prescribed in the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable;

2. If the taxpayer fails to file a written tax base return within the legal return term, for seven years from the day on which the national tax is assessable;

3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The head of ○○○ Tax Office was suspected of illegal refund of value-added tax during the second-year taxable period from 2000 to 2002, and the tax investigation was conducted on the grounds that ○○○○ was engaged in wholesale business, such as machinery tools, parts, pumps, etc. from February 25, 1991 to December 31, 2002. However, it is difficult to view that ○○○○ was selling machinery tools and parts with approximately 15 square meters in the above place of business. Since October 198, 198, ○○○ was in a situation in which it was practically impossible to operate business until the closure of business through the cutting of the right bridge, dypitis surgery, etc., and, in fact, when ○○○ operated a business instead of a tax invoice, he stated that only value-added tax was reported, and filed an accusation against ○○○○○○ Office based on the materials that it reported the value-added tax.

(2) On April 1, 2005, 2005, ○○○ Branch of ○○ District Court sentenced a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as is. On the basis of the above facts, the Defendant, who was subject to the above taxation data, demanded the Plaintiff to submit documents evidencing the purchase details of the return of value-added tax for the second period of 1999, Chapter II of the instant tax invoice was not kept as the receipt tax invoice, and the Plaintiff did not keep the deposit sheet or the statement of transaction. Of the remaining one, 2,80,000 of the tax invoice was deposited into the passbook of ○○○○○○○, and the remaining amount was paid as the collected amount of transaction payment.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 4, Evidence Nos. 2 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) According to Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, “in cases where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, national tax may be imposed for ten years from the date on which the national tax can be imposed.” Here, “Fraud or other unlawful acts” means the act which makes it possible to evade a tax and which is recognized as unlawful by social norms, i.e., a deceptive scheme which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect a tax, or other active acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Do2308, Nov. 28, 1978).

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of tax imposition, the burden of proving the existence of the tax-exempt fact is against the tax authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit have been proved, the other party cannot be deemed an unlawful disposition that does not meet the requirement of taxation in relation to the disposition, unless the other party proves that the facts in question are not eligible for the application

(2) In the case of this case, the statement of No. 3 and the witness testimony of the Plaintiff, consistent with the argument that the Plaintiff was actually engaged in the instant tax invoice and received the instant tax invoice, are ① although the part concerning the transaction with the Plaintiff related to the instant tax invoice was not included in the final and conclusive judgment, it is revealed that the regular ○○ who issued and issued the instant tax invoice was in violation of the data that issued the false and processed tax invoice over a long-term period; ② the Plaintiff failed to prove when and how the actual goods conform to the instant tax invoice were delivered to the Plaintiff’s workplace; ③ at the time when the Plaintiff traded with ○○ and the instant tax invoice, ○ was unable to operate a normal business due to the Plaintiff’s personal injury; ④ The settlement amount at the time of the transaction with each of the supply values of the instant tax invoice is difficult to be deemed to be consistent with the instant tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, it is reasonable to deem the instant tax invoice as false.

Therefore, when the plaintiff filed a return of value-added tax on July 1, 1999, if he received the tax invoice of this case from the data without real transactions, and received a false tax invoice of this case from the data without real transactions, it constitutes a case where the taxpayer evades national taxes, or obtains a refund or deduction through fraudulent or other unlawful act. In such a case, the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes shall be 10 years, not later than 5 years from the date on which the national taxes can be imposed. Thus, the defendant issued the disposition of this case on July 1, 2005, which was clearly within 10 years from January 25, 2000, which was the final return period of value-added tax for the second time of the return of value-added tax in 199, and the disposition of this case was made after 5 years from the preservation period of the books and other documentary evidence, and thus,

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.