Article 192 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act: Deemed the timing of payment of dividends, contributions, and other income by disposal of income

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

The key issue of the instant case is: (a) whether the Plaintiff was subject to input tax deduction while filing a return on the second half-year value-added tax base for the business year 2000; (b) whether the purchase tax invoice of KRW 180,000,000 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) issued by Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd”) based on the inclusion in deductible expenses was a tax invoice for processing without any real transactions corresponding thereto; (c) on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices was processed, each of the instant tax invoices was processed; and (d) whether the said supply price and its additional tax amount of KRW 198,00,000 was a bonus for Lee Jae-in, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff at the time of 200; and (e) whether the Plaintiff notified the change in income amount to the Plaintiff on August 16, 2006 was unlawful for five years after the exclusion period of the imposition of national taxes.

The first instance court accepted Chapter 6 of each tax invoice of this case, which was 180,00,000 won for the second half of the 2000 taxable period, and reported the second half-year value-added tax for each of the above tax invoices to the Defendant, and included the supply value of each of the above tax invoices in deductible expenses when filing a final tax base for the business year 2000. The Defendant deemed each of the tax invoices of this case as a non-real transaction tax invoice and deemed the above supply value and its additional tax amount of KRW 198,00,000 as a bonus for this case's non-real transaction, and deemed that there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was a transaction corresponding to each of the tax invoices of this case. Second, with respect to the issue of the issue of this case, the Plaintiff's request for exclusion of the input tax amount and its additional tax amount of KRW 190,000 as a bonus for this case's 200,000,000,0000.

2. Quotation and conclusion of the judgment of the first instance;

Therefore, the reason why the court of this case is to use the judgment of this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Maju District Court 2007Guhap367 (No. 22, 2008)]

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

가. 원고는 전기공사업 등을 영위하는 회사로, 1986. 1. 16. 주식회사 ∇∇전력이라는 상호로 설립되어 1999. 4. 6.부터 소외 ∂∂∂가 대표이사로 운영하다가, 2002. 3. 6.원고의 대표이사인 △△△ 등이 인수하여 상호를 지금과 같이 변경하고 그 소재지를 ▲▲ ▲구 ▲▲동 652-1로 옮겨 현재에 이르고 있다.

나. 원고는 2002년 제2기 과세기간 동안 §§시 §§면 §§리 산 66에 있는 주식회사 ☆☆☆☆☆☆(사업자등록번호 ○○○-81-○○095) 발행의 전기판넬 등 전기관련제품의 공급가액 합계 금 180,000,000원의 매입세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라고 한다) 6매를 수취하여, 2000년 제2기분 부가가치세를 신고하면서 위 각 세금계산서의 부가가치세액을 매입세액으로 하여 매출세액에서 공제받았고, 또 2000 사업연도 법인세 과세표준을 확정신고하면서 위 각 세금계산서의 공급가액을 손금에 산입하였다.

다. 2005. 12. §§세무서장이 위 주식회사 ☆☆☆☆☆☆를 자료상으로 고발하고 피고에게 그 과세자료를 통보하자, 피고는 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 실물거래 없는 가공의 세금계산서로 보아 가공세금계산서의 매입세액 공제를 부인하고, 그 공급가액을 손금불산입하여 과세표준을 경정한 후, 원고에게 2006. 8. 1. 2000 사업연도 법인세 금 109,248,700원을, 같은 달 17. 2000년 제2기분 부가가치세 금 41,517,000원을 각 추가로 부과하는 한편, 위 공급가액 및 그에 대한 부가세액 금 198,000,000원을 2000년 원고의 대표이사였던 ∂∂∂에게 대한 상여로 소득처분하고, 2006. 8. 16. 원고에게 소득금액변동통지(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라고 한다)를 하였다.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) 원고가 주식회사 ☆☆☆☆☆☆ 명의의 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 수취한 것은 사실이나, 이는 원고가 ※※전기 및 ★★전자로부터 전기관련제품을 매입하고 수취한 것이거나 또는 원고가 참여한 ●●지하철 공사의 노무비를 비용으로 처리하기 위하여 수취한 것으로 그 금액에 상응한 실물거래가 있으므로, 위 각 세금계산서 상당의 금액은 매입세액으로 공제 및 손금 산입되어야 하고, 따라서 법인소득금액에 변동이 없으므로 이를 전제로 하는 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

(2) 국세부과의 제척기간 5년이 이미 경과하였으므로 피고의 원고에 대한 2000년도 제2기분 부가가치세 및 2000 사업연도의 법인세의 각 부과처분은 위법하고, 또한 피고가 ∂∂∂에게 소득세를 부과할 수도 없으므로(원고는 이에 대하여 명시적인 주장을 하고 있지 않으나, 제척기관도과를 주장하는 이상 ∂∂∂에 대한 소득세 부과의 제척기간도과를 포함하여 주장하는 것으로 선해한다)이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) 과세처분의 위법을 이유로 그 취소를 구하는 행정소송에 있어 처분의 적법성 및 과세요건사실의 존재에 관하여는 원칙적으로 과세관청인 피고가 그 입증책임을 부담하나, 납세의무자가 신고한 어느 비용 중의 일부금액이 실지비용이냐 아니냐가 다투어지고 과세관청인 피고에 의해 원고 측이 주장하는 비용의 용도와 그 지급의 상대방이 허위임이 상당한 정도로 입증되었고, 원고가 그 신고내역대로의 비용지출은 아님을 시인하면서 같은 금액만큼의 다른 무엇인가의 비용 소요사실이 있었다고 주장하는 이상, 그 신고비용과 다른 비용의 존재와 액수에 관하여는 그 구체적 비용지출 사실에 관한 장부기장과 증빙 등 일체의 자료를 제시하기가 용이한 납세의무자 측에서 이를 입증할 필요가 있다(대법원 1997. 9. 26. 선고 96누8192 판결 등 참조). 그런데, 원고는 부가가치세 및 법인세 신고 시 주식회사 ☆☆☆☆☆☆로부터 수취한 세금계산서를 전기관련제품 매입금액의 증빙으로 제출하였다가 위 회사가 자료상으로 판명되자, 실물거래가 없었음에도 위 회사가 공급자로 되어 있는 사실과 다른 세금계산서를 수취한 사실은 인정하면서도 ※※전기 및 ★★전자로부터 전기관련제품을 매입하고 수취한 것이거나 또는 원고가 참여한 ●●지하철 공사의 노무비라고 주장만할 뿐 이를 객관적으로 인정할 만한 금융자료 등 아무런 증거도 제출하고 있지 아니하므로, 결국 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 실물거래 없는 가공의 세금계산서라고 볼 수밖에 없어, 위 각 세금계산서의 금액에 상당한 실물거래가 있음을 전제로 한 원고의 주장은 모두 이유 없다.

(2) 한편, 원고가 자료상으로부터 수취한 가공세금계산서를 부가가치세 및 법인세 신고 시에 매입세액 및 손금으로 산입한 것은 국세기본법(2006. 12. 30. 법률 제8139호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제26조의2 제1항 제1호의 '사기 기타 부정한 행위로서 국세를 포탈하거나 환급받는 경우'에 해당하므로(대법원 2006. 4. 13. 선고 2004도769 판결 등 참조) 그 제척기간은 10년이고, 피고가 그 각 신고기한 다음날인 2001. 1. 26.과 2001. 4. 1.부터 10년이 경과하지 아니하여 원고에게 부가가치세 및 법인세를 부과하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같으므로, 이에 대하여 제척기간 도과의 위법을 찾을 수 없고, 이 사건 처분의 통지서를 받은 날 ∂∂∂에게 소득금액을 지급한 것으로 의제되므로, 위 통지서를 받은 날 이후 비로소 피고가 ∂∂∂에게 그 부분 소득세를 부과할 수 있는 것이어서, 이 사건 처분 이전에는 제척기간을 기산할 수 없는바, 그렇다면 이 사건 처분에 제척기간과 관련한 위법이 있다는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

(4) Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

Value-Added Tax Act

○ Article 17 Tax Amount payable

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as "paid tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "purchase tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "sales tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

○ Decision and Rectification of Article 21

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of value-added tax or tax amount

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not returned in the final tax return, or all or part of the list of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered

Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8831 of Dec. 31, 2007)

○ Article 60 Report of Tax Base, etc.

(1) A domestic corporation liable for tax payment shall report the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax on income for the concerned business year to the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment within three months from the end

○ Decision and Rectification of Article 66

(2) Where a domestic corporation files a report under Article 60 in any of the following subparagraphs, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall correct the corporate tax base and

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

Article 67 (Disposition of Income)

In filing a report on the tax base of corporate tax on the income for each business year under the provisions of Article 60 or in determining or revising the tax base of corporate tax under the provisions of Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividends, and other outflow from the company, retained reserves, etc. according to the person to

Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 2006)

○ Period of exclusion from the imposition of national taxes under Article 26-2

(1) No national tax may be levied after the period prescribed in the following subparagraphs expires: Provided, That where a mutual agreement procedure is in progress under the provisions of a treaty concluded to prevent double taxation (hereinafter referred to as "tax treaty"), Article 25 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act shall apply:

1. Where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or obtains a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, for ten years from the date on which the national tax is assessable;

2. If the taxpayer fails to file a written tax base return within the legal return term, for seven years from the day on which the national tax is assessable;

3. If it does not fall under subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, for five years from the day on which the national tax is assessable; and

(4) The day when national taxes may be levied pursuant to each subparagraph of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007)

Article 12-3 (Initial Date for Exclusion of National Tax Collection Period)

(1) The date when the national taxes may be assessed as referred to in Article 26-2 (4) of the Act shall be the day falling under each of the following subparagraphs:

1. In cases of filing a return on the tax base and amount of a national tax, the following day of the deadline for filing the tax base and amount of the national tax or for filing the return (hereinafter referred to as "period for filing the tax base"). In such cases, the deadline for interim prepayment, preliminary return

Income Tax Act

§ 135. Fictitious payment date of earned income

(4) Bonuses disposed of pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act shall be deemed paid on the date determined by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17825 of Dec. 30, 2002)

§ 192. Deemed the date of payment of dividend, bonus, and other income by disposal of income

(1) In determining or correcting the corporate income amount pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act, the head of tax office, the dividend, bonus and other incomes disposed of, shall, within 15 days from the date of determination or correction, notify the corporation concerned by a notice of change of income amount as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy: Provided, That where the location of the corporation concerned is not clear or it is impossible to serve the notice, the head of tax office shall notify the stockholder concerned and the resident subjected to the disposition of the bonus

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

§ 192. Deemed the date of payment of dividend, bonus, and other income by disposal of income

(2) In cases falling under paragraph (1), dividends, bonuses and other income shall be deemed paid or recovered on the date when the notice is received.