자료상으로부터 수취한 세금계산서의 실물거래 여부 (철강재 도소매업)[국승]
Whether a tax invoice received from data is a real trade (SteM retail trade)
The details of the statement of purchase sales place, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff and the testimony of the witness are insufficient to recognize such assertion because it is difficult to find out the relationship with the details of transactions claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to
Article 19 (Scope of Losses)
[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18260 ( November 15, 2007)]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal in comparison with the records and the judgment of the court below. Since it is clear that the grounds of appeal by the appellant fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, it is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent
[Seoul High Court 2006Nu2226, 207.24]
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of corporate tax of KRW 108,216,850 for the business year of March 2, 2004 and corporate tax of KRW 29,954,320 for the business year of 2002 and corporate tax of KRW 115,983,060 for the withheld income of March 9, 2005 and tax of KRW 29,347,820 for the withheld income of KRW 20 for the year of 2002 shall be revoked.
The reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the testimony of "A21" is used as "each testimony of "A21" after the 19-1 to 4 of the evidence No. 2 of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, and the testimony of "A21" is used as "the testimony of "A21" of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, Kim ○, and Kim ○ of the party witness Kim ○," and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[Insuwon District Court 2005Guhap7496 ( August 16, 2006)]
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 108,216,850, and corporate tax of KRW 29,954,320 for the business year 2002, and corporate tax of KRW 29,954,320 for the business year 2002, respectively, against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of KRW 115,983,060 for the amount of withholding income for the year 2001, March 9, 2005 and the amount of withholding income for the year 2002 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that wholesale retails and manufactures steel materials, construction materials, and steel industrial machinery, etc. established ○○○ on ○○○, 198.
B. On January 10, 2001 to March 31, 2002, the head of ○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice 9 as shown in the table below (hereinafter “tax invoice in this case”) received from January 10, 2001 as a non-real transaction tax invoice; (b) excluded the value of supply from deductible expenses; and (c) disposed of bonus as a representative; and (d) decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 108,216,850 as corporate tax for the business year of 2001 as corporate tax for the business year of 200, and corporate tax for 29,954,320 as corporate tax for the business year of 202; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income; and (d) notified the Plaintiff of each of the instant disposition in this case of withholding income tax for the year of 2001 as tax withholding KRW 29,347,200.
Suppliers
Date of issuance
Supply Products
Value of supply (cost)
Socs and totals (wons)
○○ Comprehensive Commercial Corporation
January 10, 2001
Steel materials
14,938,900
51,375,900
February 28, 2002
19,711,100
March 20, 2001
16,725,900
○ Construction Corporation
October 10, 2001
Iron/Iron/Iron/
H-BEM
74,079,625
230,239,436
November 22, 2001
80,545,436
December 9, 2001
75,614,375
○ Industry (Representative ○○)
January 15, 2002
H-BEM
34,646,495
9,570,081
February 15, 2002
30,567,645
March 31, 2002
9,570,081
Total
381,185,417
381,185,417
C. Meanwhile, ○○○ City’s national tax administration was integrated with ○○○○ Tax Office, which was in charge of the administration of the national tax, and ○○○ Office, which was in charge of ○○ City’s national tax administration, and ○○ Office was newly established as of April 1, 2004, and the authority was succeeded from ○○ Office of Tax Administration to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 12, and the purport of the body before oral argument
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
(1) Business practices for the sales of steel products
As steel distributors like the Plaintiff purchase and sell steel as it is, or sell it after undergoing simple processing, such as cutting or cutting, etc., the average margin (a gross profit ratio) is limited to 8 through 9%. As such, because the output ratio is very low, it is almost the only way for the Plaintiff to purchase steel at low prices as business in the same field of the world like the Plaintiff to purchase steel at low prices, and thus it is common to purchase steel at low prices through a brokerage. However, tax invoices are issued under a tax invoice in the name of a supplier, not a brokerage but a brokerage, and the buyer receives the actual goods, and then pays the actual goods to a broker. In the case of steel retail business, in order to purchase steel goods at a construction site, etc., it is difficult to prepare cash immediately at the construction site and make it difficult to do so.
(2) The authenticity of transactions between the Plaintiff and Kim○○ and the illegality of the instant disposition
The Plaintiff confirmed that steel materials supplied by suppliers were consistent with the transaction amount stated in the instant tax invoice after receiving steel materials from Kim○, a construction company of ○○ Construction and ○○ Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. since 2001 and around 2002, and paid the purchase price to Kim○, knowing that the supplier under the instant tax invoice was entrusted with the sale of his own goods to the intermediary Kim○, and received the instant tax invoice. As such, the instant disposition that deemed the Plaintiff and Kim○ as a transaction for processing was unlawful.
(b) Fact of recognition;
(1) The ○○ Comprehensive Commercial Company, ○○○ Distribution, ○○ Construction Company, which issued the instant tax invoice, was confirmed as an enterprise that issues the tax invoice without any real transaction as a result of the tax investigation.
(2) Comparing the tax invoice of this case, the details of the entry into the purchase place, the details of the bank account opened with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the Plaintiff’s name (Account Number ○○○○-○○-○-○○-○, ○○○-○○-○○-○-○○-○○-○○) and the details of the entry into and exit from the sales place, the details of the entry are as shown
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 12 evidence, Gap 13 evidence 13 to 3, Gap 14-1, 2, Gap 15-1 to 4, Eul 6-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
C. Determination
(1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, who is a taxpayer, should prove that the instant tax invoice was actually traded in accordance with such tax invoice, since the processing tax invoice issued by the data form is identical to that recognized.
(2) Therefore, as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to see the Plaintiff’s 1 to 3, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 1 to 3, 5-1 to 5, 5, 1 to 5, 1 to 3, 7-1 to 3, 18-1 to 8, 10-1 to 3, 11-3, 11-1 to 3, 14-1, 2, 17, 19-1 to 4, 19-1 to 3, 14-1 to 4, 14-1 to 3, 14-2, 19-1 to 3, 19-4, 1 to 3, 1 to 3, 15-1 to 4, 1 to 3, 1 to 3, and 1 to 4, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s testimony and 14-1 to 18, 3001.
(3) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice for processing no real transaction is lawful.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Details of comparisons
(unit: Won)
Details of the tax invoice of this case
Details of the purchase ledger;
Withdrawal of Deposits
Place of Sales
Suppliers
Date of issuance
Proceeds from supply
Date of entry
Amount of bookkeeping
Amount of the withdrawn money
Sales proceeds
(m)○○ General Commercial
January 10, 200
16,432,700
January 31, 2001
16,432,700
28,829,636
(m)○○ General Commercial
February 28, 2001
21,682,210
5, 201
21,682,210
16,297,533
16,297,533
(m)○○ General Commercial
201.3.20
18,398,490
501.31
18,398,490
30,000,000
Sub-committees
56,513,400
Sub-committees
56,513,400
○ ○ Construction (State)
o October 10, 201
81,487,587
September 28, 2001
20,000,000
20,000,000
○ ○ Construction (State)
November 22, 2001
8,599,979
oly 24, 2001
10,000,000
10,000,000
○ ○ Construction (State)
December 9, 2001
83,175,812
oly 31, 2001
60,000,000
62,054,441
November 12, 2001
40,000,000
46,716,950
November 30, 2001
20,000,000
20,000,000
December 31, 2001
35,000,000
52,673,810
January 14, 2002
30,000,000
14,256,390
15,743,610
January 31, 2002
38,263,378
67,166,968
Sub-committees
253,263,378
Sub-committees
253,263,378
○ Industry Ma○○
January 15, 2002
38,111,144
January 25, 2002
12,000,000
12,017,500
○ Industry Ma○○
February 15, 2002
3,391,535
January 31, 2002
24,000,000
67,166,968
○ Industry Ma○○
202.3.21
38,024,409
d February 28, 2002
32,000,000
54,531,212
o April 8, 2002
15,000,000
13,430,000
1,570,000
.28 2002
26,527,081
30,354,723
Sub-committees
109,527,088
109,527,081