전체 부품가격이 아닌 하나의 일시적인 가격차이 만으로는 세금계산서가 허위라고 단정할 수 없음[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap4334 ( October 28, 2011)
A tax invoice cannot be concluded to be false solely on the basis of a temporary price difference other than the total price of parts.
The difference in the price of parts by seller can be deemed to have been provided with parts at the previous price by recognizing the difference in the price due to the change in the purchasing place, and changing the customer again. Thus, it cannot be said that the temporary price difference of the part, which is not the total price of the parts by the customer, has been proven to the extent that
Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
2011Nu8477 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax by Patom
XX Unemployment Co., Ltd.
Director of the District Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap4334 decided January 28, 2011
June 21, 2011
July 19, 2011
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2009 KRW 3,81,940 for the first term of 2004, KRW 10,079,350 for the second term of 2004, KRW 4,884.30 for the second term of 2005, KRW 10,148,490 for the second term of 2005, and KRW 3,819,100 for the first term of 2006.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The court's reasoning concerning this case is that the first term portion 4,884,300 won in the second term of 2006 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "4,884,300 won in the first term of 2005," and it is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except that the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The defendant's assertion
(1) According to the ledger of the Plaintiff’s part-time cost accounts, the monthly amount that the Plaintiff purchased from the Plaintiff’s trade in ○○○ Management and △△△△△ in the quarter of April 2004, February 4, 2005, and February 4, 2006, is equal to KRW 11,985,30,880,60, KRW 9,245,500, and KRW 30,111,40, and the Plaintiff appears to have received a false tax invoice in the amount equivalent to the necessary amount from the ordinary trade in ○○○ Management and △△△△△, and reported value-added tax.
(2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that he paid the purchase price in cash to the head of the vehicle in order to save the cost. According to the relevant data, the Plaintiff’s assertion that he changed the purchase price of the Samak in the first quarter of January 2005 from the trade of the Do governor in Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the ○○○○○○ Management. At that time, the ○○○○○○ Management's three thousand won per unit price per unit, and the 10,000 won per unit price per ○○○○ Management's trade, and the 10,000 won per unit price per unit, and the change of
(3) In relation to the timing of the replacement of parts, in general, it appears that the number of the upper half-term purchase of the Plaintiff in 2005 is different by item from that of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff, even though it is common to replace the lower part in the case of a water-driven motor vehicle with a set of time for the replacement of parts, it is difficult to believe the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.
(4) Therefore, in full view of the foregoing circumstances, it should be deemed that the instant tax invoice was prepared and issued in falsity without real transactions.
B. Determination
(1) First, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s monthly purchase amount and the number of purchases and the details of purchase parts in the transaction with the Plaintiff’s ordinary trade and ○○○○○ Management, only with the descriptions in the evidence No. 7-1 or 3, are identical to the Plaintiff’s monthly purchase amount and the Plaintiff’s monthly purchase number and the number of purchase parts in the transaction with the Plaintiff’s trade and ○○○ Management, and even if the same type is not modified even if the same is not changed, it is difficult to readily conclude that monthly purchase amount can be the same and that the monthly purchase amount and the monthly purchase amount may vary with the previous item and quantity,
(2) Next, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff purchased parts of KRW 23,00 per unit price of KRW 33,00 per unit price when changing the customer in the first quarter of January 2005 to ○○○○○○○○ in the second quarter of February 1, 2005, and thereafter changing the customer in the second quarter of February 2005 to ○○○○○○ in the second quarter of February 2/4, 2005, the Plaintiff was provided with KRW 23,00 per unit price per unit. However, even if the Plaintiff was to receive KRW 23,00 per unit price from the date of changing the customer in the first quarter of February 2/4, 2005 to △△△△△, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was supplied with the parts by changing the customer at the previous price.
(3) Lastly, in the case of a manual-speed vehicle, it is common to exchange the parts with a set of trip, disc, or string, which are its constituent parts, but only a part of the parts can be replaced. Thus, even if there is a little difference in the volume of each part of the part purchased by the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone alone cannot be readily concluded that the transaction is false.
(4) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant tax invoice was issued in a false manner without real transactions is difficult to accept.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.