Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

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

A. On July 15, 1994, the Plaintiff started the business at ○○-○, 194-○, ○○, and then closed the business on December 20, 2007, with the trade name of “○○ Technology” from September 29, 2006.

B. In filing a return of value-added tax and global income tax in 2005 and 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount of the purchase tax invoice received from five companies, such as ○ Chemical, etc. (hereinafter “○ Chemical, etc.”) as listed below, and then adding the supply value of the said tax invoice to the necessary expenses. The Plaintiff calculated the total income tax by adding the supply value of the said tax invoice to the necessary expenses.

C. On October 10, 207, the Defendant issued a revised notice of KRW 50,752,150, value-added tax for 1 year 2005, KRW 40,101,580, value-added tax for 2 year 2005, KRW 30,011,670, value-added tax for 1 year 2006, and KRW 28,106,620, and documentary evidence for 2 year 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing value-added tax”), on the ground that the account book and documentary evidence were false or fictitious (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing value-added tax”), and on the same day, the Defendant estimated the Plaintiff’s income amount based on the standard expense rate and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 21,815,800, KRW 30,566,306, and global income tax for 206 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing global income tax”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, requested an inquiry to the Tax Tribunal on January 11, 2008, but was dismissed on August 22, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 6-20, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the tax invoice of this case received cost is prepared according to the actual transaction, each of the dispositions of this case based on the premise that the transaction is a processed and stolen transaction is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the defense prior to the merits

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful since it was filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under Article 56 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and without going through a decision based thereon. However, as seen earlier, it is obvious that the lawsuit of this case had gone through a procedure of the Tax Tribunal,

(2) Judgment on the merits

1) The disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case

(A) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, 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 not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove 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, by asserting that the tax invoice is not false (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14168, Jun. 10, 2005).

(B) In addition to the purport of the argument in each of the above statements Nos. 6 through 9 evidence Nos. 2 and 10-1 and 2, the representative director of ○○ Chemical was present on February 5, 2007 in the investigation and investigation, and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 230,00,000 to the Plaintiff during the first period of 205, and the new ○○○○○, who had worked as the head of ○ ○ Tech, was present at the investigation and investigation on August 1, 2006, and stated that the Plaintiff was 70,390,000 won at the 205, a false tax invoice No. 200,000,000 won at the 20,000,000,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff was 70,000,000,000 won (the 20,015,000).

(C) On this point, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a real transaction with ○○ chemical, etc. upon submitting the certificate of deposit, deposit slip, and statement of transaction from Gap evidence Nos. 3 through Gap evidence No. 19 (including each serial number in the case of additional serial number) as evidentiary material. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by adding a part of Eul evidence No. 7 and witness testimony to the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s actual operation of the Plaintiff’s place of business, namely, the Plaintiff’s purchase of goods from the low-priced company with the full value of the materials with the purchase tax invoice, and the value-added tax is levied on the Plaintiff due to the lack of the purchase tax invoice, it is time for the Plaintiff to receive a false tax invoice different from the fact through dilution and other sellers. In light of the fact that ○○ was difficult to obtain a false statement or receipt as to investigator’s questions, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the transaction was made as a witness at the last time.

2) The instant disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff

As seen earlier, considerable parts of the purchase tax invoice in 2005 and 2006 were falsely confirmed, and thus, it cannot be trusted as is. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not prepare a book keeping a proper statement of transactions at the instant workplace. As such, it is lawful for the Defendant to estimate the total income tax for the pertinent taxable year by deeming that there is no necessary account books and documentary evidence in calculating the global income tax base in 2005 and 2006 against the Plaintiff, or that there is insufficient or false material part.

3) The instant disposition imposing value-added tax and global income tax is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing such disposition is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is filed on the grounds of no reasonable ground.