이 사건 거래는 실물거래가 아니며 세금계산서 발급은 거래상대방에게 교부되는 것까지 의미함[일부국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap6779 ( December 2, 2016)
The instant transaction is not a real transaction, and the issuance of a tax invoice means that the transaction is not a real transaction and is issued to the other party.
(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant did not prove that the transaction of this case is not accompanied by real transactions to the extent that it reasonably acceptable by the defendant. The term "issuance of tax invoice" means the issuance of tax invoice to the counter-party to the transaction stated in the tax invoice.
Article 16 (Tax Invoice)
2017Nu3001 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.
(Appellant)
AA
(Appellant)
BB Director of the Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap67779 decided December 2, 2016
April 28, 2017
May 26, 2007
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
On July 1, 2014, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014, value-added tax of 491,507,960 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of 2007 for the second term of 2007 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of 110,227,270 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of 209 for the second term of 209 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of 77,234,240 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of 159,126,00 (including additional taxes), value-added tax of 206,981,340 (including additional taxes) for the second term of 2010, value-added tax of 415,057,208 (including additional taxes) for the second term of 200,209 (including additional taxes), and the penalty tax of 208,20071 (including additional taxes) for the tax for each year of 111.
2. Purport of appeal
The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed (with respect to the part dismissed due to illegality in the judgment of the court of first instance, the above part shall be excluded from the object of the judgment
1. Partial citement of judgment of the first instance;
This judgment is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for dismissal or addition of the following:
The ○○ 8th 16th 7th 16th 16th 16th 1st 1st 200 is that the difference between the purchase amount and the sales amount of each individual taxable period, such as not having been available, and the Plaintiff, even though there was no purchase amount from ○○ in 2008, the sales amount to ccc 208, and the sales amount of the entire taxable period are similar to the Defendant’s assertion, making it difficult to regard the transaction between the above companies as
The following parts shall be added to the 10th 6th 6th Myeon.
“(A) ○○○, at the time of the investigation by the Investigative Agency, only made a statement to the effect that part of the instant transactions is real transactions, and that some of them cannot specify the time and amount of false or fraudulent transactions,” and thus, it did not recognize that the instant transactions were completely processed transactions.”
○ 10. 13. The following shall be added to the 13th page:
“Along if ○○○○ did not object to the penalty tax imposed on the instant transaction, as alleged by the Defendant, as stated in the evidence Nos. 18 and 19, it is difficult to view that the imposition of penalty tax on ○○○○ does not coincide with the fact that the Plaintiff was the subject of the imposition of penalty tax on the Plaintiff (in 2008, it is unclear whether ○○○ imposed penalty tax on the instant transaction, including where the Plaintiff and ○○○○○ did not have any transaction between the Plaintiff in 2008, on the grounds that it was subject to the imposition of penalty tax for the taxable period of 2008), and on the ground that the imposition of penalty tax on ○○○○ cannot be deemed as a processing transaction.”
○ 10. 16. The following shall be added:
"(A) there is no evidence to specify the processing transaction of the instant case even if a part of the instant transaction is a processed transaction."
○ 12. 16. The following shall be added to:
“The Supreme Court Decision 2016Du31920 Decided November 10, 2016 cited by the Defendant is not appropriate to be invoked in the instant case because the case is different.”
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the remaining claims except the dismissed part of the plaintiff's claim are reasonable and acceptable. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.