신축공사 관련 실물거래없는 가공세금계산서를 수취하였는지 여부[국승]
early 208 Before 2008 ( December 15, 2008)
Whether a processed tax invoice related to a new construction project has been received;
A refund report is based on a processed tax invoice that does not have any real transaction, in view of the fact that there was no purchase of personnel expenses or materials by a person who has no capacity to purchase them, and that a refund report is found guilty by issuing
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Article 47-2 (Additional Tax on Non-Filing)
Article 47-4 (Additional Tax on Excess Refund Return)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s disposition of imposing the amount exceeding 60,909,090 won among the disposition of imposing the amount of value-added tax of 152,272,720 won on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2007 (the “value-added tax of 152,272,70 won” stated in the application for modifying the purport and cause seems to be written in writing).
1. Circumstances of the disposition;
가. 원고는 충북 진천군 ☆☆☆읍 ☆☆☆리에 있는 '★★★ 모텔' 신축공사(이하 '이 사건 모텔 신축공사'라고 한다)의 건축주로서, 2007. 7. 25. 피고에게 2007년 1기분 부가가치세 확정 신고를 하면서 건축업자 염○○이 발행한 2007. 5. 27.자 공급가액 3,045,454,545원의 세금계산서 1매(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)를 첨부하여 위 금액을 시설투자로 인한 환급세액으로 조기환급신고(이하 '이 사건 환급신고'라고 한다) 하였다.
B. The Defendant refused to refund the value-added tax on the ground that the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice for processing without a real transaction, and subsequently, on October 1, 2007, issued a disposition imposing value-added tax (additional tax) KRW 152,272,720 on the Plaintiff by applying 40% of the additional tax for excess refund (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice for processing without a real transaction.
C. On December 27, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Director of the District Tax Office on December 27, 2007, but was dismissed on January 22, 2008, and again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 14, 2008, but was dismissed on December 15, 2008.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Evidence Nos. 1, Evidence Nos. 6 through 9, Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 7, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The new construction of the instant Moel was carried out in the order of partial construction in order after entering into an agreement with the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission (the amount of KRW 350,000,000,000) and Balsium Co., Ltd. (the amount of KRW 1,500,000,000) and salt ○○ (the amount of KRW 1,50,000,000). The Plaintiff actually paid construction expenses to them. However, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice and reported the refund of value-added tax from the Plaintiff as if he had carried out all construction works for convenience and convenience. However, in light of the above circumstances, this does not constitute a return of value-added tax by improper means. Therefore, it is unlawful to apply the penalty tax of KRW 40,00 in the instant disposition, and thus, it should be lowered to 10%, which is a general penalty tax rate.
(b) Related statutes;
It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.
C. Determination
(1) In order to ensure the faithful fulfillment of the obligation under tax-related Acts, penalty taxes are collected in addition to the amount calculated under tax-related Acts. Article 47-2 and 4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 27(2)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the amount of excess refund shall be either added to or deducted from the amount of tax to be refunded.
(2) According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 11 and the entire arguments, the new construction corporation of the instant Motour was suspended on or around October 2005, and thereafter there was no additional construction corporation. The additional construction corporation did not purchase any labor cost or material necessary for the new construction of the instant Motour with a person who has no actual place of business and capacity, and it can be acknowledged that the instant tax invoice was charged for the crime of issuing the false tax invoice and confirmed guilty on August 20, 2009.
(3) In the case of the above recognition and the preceding factual relationship, the refund declaration in the instant case constitutes “the case where there is an excessive refund declaration due to the submission of false evidence with which it is known that it is false.”
(4) The Plaintiff’s principal is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s dismissal