수취한 세금계산서에 상당하는 금액의 실물거래가 있었는지 여부[국패]
Whether the amount equivalent to the tax invoice received has been a real transaction
It shall not be recognized that an entrepreneur who has issued a tax invoice was subject to a disposition without suspicion in the prosecution investigation and is not a real transaction.
Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)
1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2006 of KRW 12,070,380 for the first term of 203 and KRW 16,13,110 for the second term of 203 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
Cheong-gu Office
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Details of the imposition;
가. 원고는 이◯◯과 함께 1992. 12. 17.부터 2004. 12. 31.까지 서울 ◯◯구 ◯◯동 ◯◯에서 '◯◯'이라는 상호로 귀금속·지금의 도·소매업을 영위하였다.
나. 원고는, 아래 표 기재와 같이 ① 2003년 제1기분 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯(대표이사 김◯◯, 이하 '소외 회사'라고 한다)로부터 수취한 합계 76,799,364원 상당의 지금(地金) 매입세금계산서 6장, ② 2003년 제2기분 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 소외 회사로부터 수취한 합계 110,698,637원 상당의 매입세금계산서 5장(이하 위 각 세금계산서를 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 하고, 위 각 거래를 '이 사건 거래'라고 한다)에 대한 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하여 신고하였다.
No.
Gu Sector
first day; and
Value of supply (cost)
Tax amount (cost)
1
203 No. 1
February 15, 2003
13,360,000
1,336,000
2
“”
February 18, 2003
13,147,00
1314,700
3
“”
203.20
13,173,00
1,317,300
4
“”
February 25, 2003
13,33,00
1,333,300
5
“”
on March 7, 2003
13,520,000
1,352,000
6
“”
203.3.20
13,266,364
1,326,636
Total
76,799,364
7
203 203
August 30, 2003
27,152,000
2,715,200
8
“”
September 1, 2003
13,653,00
1,365,300
9
“”
September 4, 2003
27,254,000
2,725,400
10
“”
September 26, 2003
13,733,637
1,373,363
11
“”
November 17, 2003
28,906,000
2,890,600
Total
10,698,637
다. ◯◯시 ◯◯세무서장은 소외 회사에 대한 세무조사를 실시한 결과, 소외 회사가 2001년 제1기부터 2004년 제2기까지의 과세기간 동안 총매출액 2,462억 7,500만 원과 총 매입액 2,499억 5,900만 원 전액에 대하여 실물거래 없이 허위세금계산서를 수취하거나 발행하는 등 자료상 행위를 하였다는 혐의로 2004. 12. 김◯◯과 소외 회사를 조세범처벌법위반 혐의로 ◯◯경찰서에 고발하는 한편 이 사건 세금계산서에 관하여 피고에게 통보하였다.
라. 피고는 ◯◯세무서장의 통보에 따라 2006. 6. 1. 이 사건 세금계산서를 실물거래 없는 가공세금계산서로 인정하여 원고에게 부가가치세 2003년 제1기분 12,070,380원 2003년 제2기분 16,133,110원을 각 재경정·고지하였다(이하 '이 사건 부과처분'이라 한다).
마. 원고는 이 사건 부과처분에 불복하여 ◯◯◯◯에 심판청구를 하였으나, ◯◯ ◯◯은 2006. 11. 10. 심판청구기각결정을 하였다.
[Ground of Recognition] A.1, 4, 6, B.1, 2, 3 (including each number) without dispute
2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Since the Plaintiff purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from the non-party company and paid the price to the non-party company’s passbook by means of remitting it to the non-party company’s passbook, the instant tax invoice is a normal transaction. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice
(b) Related statutes;
Maf06e Value-Added Tax Act
Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)
(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;
C. Determination
The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is a tax authority. Thus, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice of this case is not accompanied by a real transaction based on direct evidence or overall circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu663, Jun. 23, 1987; 85Nu515, Mar. 24, 1987).
살피건대, 갑1~9(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 증인 김◯◯의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 각 거래 일자에 이◯◯(◯◯) 명의의 ◯◯은행 예금통장(통장번호 ◯◯◯◯◯◯◯◯)에서 위 표에 기재된 각 공급가액 상당의 금원이 인출되어 소외 회사의 계좌로 이체된 사실, ◯◯세무서장이 위와 같이 김◯◯과 소외 회사를 조세범처벌법위반 협의로 고발하였으나, ◯◯◯◯◯◯은 2006. 1. 16. 2005형제 42079호 사건에서 김◯◯과 소외 회사에 대하여 각 혐의 없음 처분을 한 사실을 인정 할 수 있다.
In light of the circumstances revealed in the above facts, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice that does not accompany the real transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.