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

Cheong-gu Office

Value-added tax for the first period of January 2001, 2006 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff 8,112,710 won

August 2006

1. The imposition of the value-added tax for a period of two years 201 shall be revoked; and

A. From November 15, 1999 to October 11, 2004, the Plaintiff engaged in the manufacturing business with the trade name of ○○○○○○ in Seoul ○○-dong, ○○○○○, and the Plaintiff received 29 copies of purchase tax invoices (hereinafter “tax invoices of this case”) equivalent to 195,829,89,935 won in total of supply value as shown in the separate sheet from 195,829,89, and 201, 157,039,09,959 won in 201, 2001, and then deducted the input tax amount on each of the purchase tax invoices of this case from the output tax amount.

B. However, on the ground that the above ○○○○○ and the tax invoice of this case received by the Plaintiff from ○○○○○○ was a data tax invoice for processing without real transactions, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 8,112,710 on June 12, 2006, value-added tax of KRW 31,792,550 on August 1, 2006 and value-added tax of KRW 31,792,550 on August 1, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above tax dispositions”).

C. On August 2, 2006, the Plaintiff appealed to the International Tribunal on October 17, 2006, but was dismissed on December 21, 2006.

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 4-1, 5-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 5-2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the tax invoice of this case received by the Plaintiff was prepared according to the actual transaction, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that all the transaction in the tax invoice of this case is a processing transaction is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

0. Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he/she shall issue an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, at the time specified in Article 9 (where Presidential Decree prescribes otherwise, referring to the time specified otherwise):

In such cases, where any cause prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error or correction, occurs after a tax invoice is issued, the tax invoice may be revised and issued as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to as the

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(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;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) ○○○ is the representative on the business registration. However, the actual representative is ○○○ (from January 16, 2001 to July 2, 2002) and ○○○ (from July 2, 2002 to the date of business closure).

According to the results of the tax investigation conducted by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on ○○○○○○, the amount of KRW 127,081,081,127,397 (2,762 companies and sales tax invoices 24,852) out of the total sales amount of KRW 257,79,00,000 reported by ○○○○○○○ from the first half to the first half of 2004 was processed sales, and the amount of KRW 62,732,92,178 was processed credit card sales slip (7,971,826,000 out of the sales tax invoice generated by ○○○○○○○○○○ was processed sales amounting to KRW 73.6%). In order to disguise the normal sales, ○○○○○○’s employees disposed of in the name of the processing trading office, or received the remainder of the processing sales from the processing office in cash, and disposed of the fees by deposit.

On the other hand, on November 2, 2004, at the time of investigating data about ○○○○○○, ○○○ confirmed that the instant tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff was based on the processing transaction without real transaction.

Applicant ○○○○ and ○○○ were subject to criminal punishment on the grounds that the processed sales tax invoices were issued while actually running ○○○○○○○ and the instant tax invoices were issued. ○○○○○: Seoul Western District Court 2004 High Court 2004 High Court ○○○○○○, ○○○○: Seoul Western District Court 2004 High Court 2004 High Court ○○, 2005 High Court ○○○○, 2006 High Court 2006 High Court ○○, 2006 ○○, 2006 ○), and ○○ and ○○○○. The instant tax invoices are all included in the criminal facts of the final conviction judgment.

(v) The Plaintiff operated ○○○○○○ in Seoul ○○-dong from October 1, 1991 to October 31, 1992 as well as ○○○○○○-dong in Seoul ○○-dong from November 5, 1992 to August 27, 1994, and operated ○○○-dong in Seoul ○○-dong from November 5, 1992 to April 30, 2001, ○○○-dong in Seoul ○○-dong in Seoul ○○-dong, from May 7, 2002 to March 19, 2004.

⑹ 원고는 이 사건 세금계산서 작성일자와 비슷한 시기에 통장에서 현금이 출금된 거래내역을 제출하고 있으나, 위 돈이 ○○○○에 실제 지급되었는지 여부는 확인되지 않는다.

The purport of the whole arguments and arguments described in Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 9-1 through 13-2, Eul evidence 15-1 through 17-2, and Eul evidence 15-2

D. Determination

(1) As a matter of principle, the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, the tax authority has the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is sufficient to prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions, the defendant needs to prove that it is consistent with his/her own assertion considering that it is easy to present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant's disposition.

In addition, even if an administrative trial is not bound by the fact-finding in a criminal trial, the fact that has already been recognized as the crime of criminal judgment based on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence. Therefore, barring any special circumstance where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial, the facts inconsistent with this cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 1997; 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199).

2. On the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the part of the plaintiff's argument that the tax invoice of this case was prepared in accordance with the actual transaction, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7-1, 7-2, and witness's testimony of ○○○○○○○ was merely a unilateral argument of the plaintiff, or it was written after the fact that ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○ had already been issued the tax invoice of this case to the plaintiff without any real transaction. However, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand, on the part of the plaintiff's argument that the tax invoice of this case was prepared in accordance with the actual transaction, there is no other evidence to prove whether the plaintiff's cash was actually paid to ○○○○○, which was already closed on April 30, 2001.

Secondly, unlike the fact that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was recognized as a crime of criminal judgment which became final and conclusive in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff actually purchased the tax invoice of this case from ○○○○○, and the disposition of this case, as the conclusion, is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.