이 사건 매입세금계산서는 사실과 다른 세금계산서임.[국승]
Cho Jae-2013-China-337 ( October 29, 2014)
The purchase tax invoice of this case is different from the fact.
The Plaintiff asserted that the pertinent service is a subcontract, but paid personnel expenses directly by the Plaintiff, and stated that it is a false tax invoice received in order to reduce tax burden in the course of tax investigation, and thus, the instant tax invoice is a different tax invoice from the fact.
Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
The revocation of the disposition of revocation of the District Court 2015 Guhap245
KimA
CC director of the tax office
May 31, 2016
July 5, 2016
1. Of the instant lawsuit, each claim for revocation in excess of 16,725,690 won among the value-added tax for February 2, 2008 and the value-added tax for January 2009 and the value-added tax for January 2010, and each claim for revocation in excess of 16,725,690 won among the value-added tax for February 2010 shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 24,873,750 on November 6, 2012 against the Plaintiff on February 2008, KRW 200, KRW 21,208, KRW 700 on January 21, 2009, KRW 16,870, KRW 490 on January 2010, and KRW 22,24,960 on February 2, 2010 shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice of KRW 165,200,000 (Evidence No. 8-4, 5, hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) on the aggregate of the supply values entered by suppliers from LeeB in 2010, when operating a human resources supplier, “FF human resources” from DE EE Dong 2131, the Plaintiff reported and paid the input tax amount corresponding to the said supply value by deducting the input tax amount corresponding to the said supply value from the input tax amount corresponding to the said supply value.
B. On November 6, 2012, the Defendant: (a) deemed the Plaintiff as the actual operator of the said GLA from around 2008 to around 2010, added 2,214,401,00 won to the Plaintiff’s sales; (b) decided not to deduct the input tax amount corresponding to each of the instant tax invoices; (c) notified the Plaintiff of the increase in the value-added tax for the first period of January, 2008, KRW 54,402,750; (d) the second period of February, 2008, KRW 105,445,660; and (e) the first period of January, 2009, KRW 73,685,160; and (e) the second period of February, 2009, KRW 73,205,610, KRW 525,720, KRW 9329,205,209.
C. On July 10, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal.
하였고, 조세심판원은 2014. 10. 29.공급자가 GG하우징으로 기재된 각 세금계산서의 실제 발급자를 재조사하여 그 결과에 따라 과세표준 및 세액을 경정한다.��라는 재조사 결정을 하였다.
D. After re-investigation, the Defendant is not the Plaintiff but the actual operator of the GG river.
On the premise of this, while GGL excluded each of the tax invoices issued to the customer from the Plaintiff’s sales, it considers each of the instant tax invoices as false tax invoices. From January 2008 to February 2009 of the value-added tax originally imposed on the Plaintiff around December 2014, it canceled all of the value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiff and corrected the amount of 12,684,700 won for the first period of 2010 and the amount of 16,725,690 won for the second period of 2010 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 13, 14, Eul evidence 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Where an administrative disposition regarding value-added tax revoked or reduced on or around December 2014 among the instant lawsuits is revoked, such disposition becomes null and void due to the revocation, and no longer exists. A revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as it does not have a benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).
As can be seen through the aforementioned dispositions, the Defendant revoked all value-added taxes from the minutes of December 2014 to the part of 2009 on or around December 2014, and corrected the amount to 12,684,700 won for the first period of January 2010, and the amount to 16,725,690 won for the second period of February 2010. As such, the imposition of value-added taxes on the revoked and reduced portion is no longer nonexistent, the part seeking the cancellation of the said portion in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.
3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Each of the instant tax invoices, which was issued by the Plaintiff from this B while entering into a subcontract to the GG Hava, operated by this B, cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice, is unlawful, notwithstanding the fact that each of the instant dispositions based on a different premise is unlawful.
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
The evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 10 (including documentary evidence with a serial number), Eul
제1, 2, 5 내지 10호증의 각 기재를 통해 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 원고의주장대로라면 이 사건 각 세금계산서와 관련된 용역 작업 시 그 하도급대금을 이BB에게 지급하고 이BB가 이를 가지고 근로자들에게 인건비를 지급하였어야 할 것이나,실제로는 원고가 근로자들에게 직접 인건비를 지급하였고 이BB는 인건비 지급에 주도적으로 관여하지 않은 것으로 보이는 점, ② 2010년 당시 GG하우징의 사무실이라고 할 만한 시설이 전혀 없었고, 국세청에 등록된 전화번호도 원고가 운영한 FF인력의 전화번호와 동일하였으며, 이BB는 FF인력 사무실에 머물면서 업무를 처리하였는바, GG하우징이 실질적으로는 FF인력으로부터 독립된 별개의 사업장이 아닌 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 이BB도 2011. 12. 8. 피고 소속 담당공무원과의 문답 과정에서이 사건 각 세금계산서에 관하여��FF인력이 부가가치세 신고 시 세금 부담이 많다고요청하여 허위로 발행해 준 세금계산서이다.��라고 진술하였던 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 허위세금계산서에 해당한다고 인정함이 상당하고,이와 다른 취지의 증인 이BB의 일부 증언은 그대로 믿기 어렵거나 이것만으로 위 인정을 뒤집기에 부족하다. 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.
4. Conclusion
If so, the part concerning value-added tax revoked or reduced on December 2014 among the lawsuit in this case is related to value-added tax.
Since the plaintiff's remaining claims are illegal, they are dismissed as it is without merit.