Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

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

A. From November 22, 199 to 00-16 of Busan ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○-dong, and from November 22, 1999, the Plaintiff New ○○-si, the wife of the Plaintiff New ○○-dong, and the Plaintiff Han ○○-dong, the wife of the Plaintiff New ○○○-dong, engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of “○○○○-dong from April 10, 2001”. The Defendants reported and paid the first and second half-year value-added tax for the year 2002, and deducted the amount of value-added tax on the tax invoice (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) as the input tax amount under the following tax invoices (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”).

B. The Defendants were notified by the director of the tax office of the Nam-gu of the taxation data that the tax invoice was issued without real transaction, and the pertinent input tax amount was not deducted on the grounds that the tax invoice of this case was issued without real transaction. On September 1, 2006, the head of the tax office of the East-gu imposed on the Plaintiff New Troan value-added 9,969,540 won, value-added tax for the first period of September 1, 2002, value-added tax for the second period of 2002, value-added tax for the second period of 204,840 won, and the head of the tax office of the Busan Busan Busan on October 11, 206, value-added tax for the first period of 1st year of 202, 7,353,120 won, respectively (hereinafter “each disposition”).

C. The Plaintiffs filed a request for review of each of the instant dispositions with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on March 2, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 6, 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs ordered gold bullion on the telephone ○○○ △ju, and delivered gold bullion in the way of being supplied with gold bullion through ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○○ m, the external relationship of the plaintiffs, and processed it to 18K or 14K products and sold it at retail. The price is deposited in the bank account of the ○○ ○○ me in the cash bank account in the vicinity of the ○ ○○ ○○ ○○ me (the precious specialized store operated by the ○○ me) in the cash bank account previously withdrawn from the bank account. The plaintiffs concluded that the tax invoice of this case received from the ○ ○○ me-me through the above normal transaction was false, and that each disposition of this case by the defendants is unlawful in violation of the principle of substantial taxation and the principle of substantial taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A company established by ○○○○○○○ Head of 50 million capital and reported that it purchased gold bullion amounting to KRW 553,324,00,000 from 1st to 2nd of 2001, and sold it to 21 companies outside of 00,000 from 203, and most of the above purchasing companies were recognized as data as 453,900,000 won from 20,000 won from 200,000,000 won from 30,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 30,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 30,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 30,000,000 won from 20,000,00 won from 203,00.3,036,0.

(2) In the name of the Plaintiffs, at the ○○○ Dong branch of the Nonghyup Federation, the amount equivalent to the amount indicated in the instant tax invoice was deposited without passbook in the bank account of ○○○ through the bank account of the instant tax invoice.

"(3) When depositing gold bullion as above in the name of the purchase price for gold bullion, Lee ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was traded by Lee ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. Of the deposits without gold bullion, this is also prepared by Lee ○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○ (representative ○○), ○○○○ (representative ○), ○○○○○○ (representative ○○), ○○○○○○ (representative ○○), ○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, 200, 300, 205, 205, 300, 200, 205, 300, 204, 200, 205, 201.

(5) On the other hand, Plaintiff Newcom was supplied with ○○○○○○ Company and ○○○○○ Company with eculatory eculation, etc., and the said company had paid the gold bullion price by telephone transfer to the said company.

(6) The head of the competent tax office received a disposition of correction or notification of each value-added tax on the ground that the purchase tax invoice related to gold bullion received from Lee ○○, leap, Kim ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○○, on the ground that the purchase tax invoice related to gold bullion was false, and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of correction or notification of each value-added tax on the ground that it was identical or almost similar to the Plaintiffs, and all of the lawsuit was ruled against the first instance court or the appellate court (the major finalized state or

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 9, 10 evidence, Eul 5, 6, 8, 13 through 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is a 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 circumstances. If the defendant has proved 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 a 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).

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to acknowledge that ○○○○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.