부가가치세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company that had been engaged in the clothing and furniture manufacturing business, etc. in the Suwon-si District B from around 2010.
B. The Plaintiff purchased the clothing, furniture, etc. of KRW 7,2850,000 from C (hereinafter “C”) during the period of the value-added tax taxable period of January 2012, and received each purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “each of the above tax invoices”) and subsequently paid the value-added tax to the Defendant after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.
C. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on C, the director of the tax office determined that C issued each of the tax invoices of this case without real transactions with the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant thereof.
Accordingly, the Defendant, on June 9, 2017, issued a revised notice of KRW 14,822,200 and KRW 13,900,520 for the corporate tax for the year 2012, respectively, by deducting the input tax amount under each of the instant tax invoices.
(hereinafter the above notice of correction of value-added tax is referred to as the “instant disposition”).
The Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on November 27, 2017 upon receipt of an objection on August 4, 2017, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the claim on the instant disposition on February 5, 2018, and rendered a decision to revoke the disposition of imposing corporate tax.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff was supplied with goods normally by C and paid the price in full. Thus, each of the instant tax invoices cannot be deemed as false.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
4. Determination
A. The burden of proving that each of the tax invoices of this case is different from the facts is, in principle, the defendant who is the tax authority.