beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2007. 01. 31. 선고 2006구합20440 판결

가공거래 여부[국승]

Title

Whether processing transactions are conducted

Summary

It is reasonable to deem that a sale and purchase tax invoice is issued without a real transaction, and it is difficult to deem that a tax invoice is a real transaction as data submitted by the Plaintiff to prove that it is a real transaction.

Related statutes

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 17,601,320 for the second period of December 1, 2004, KRW 28,891,540 for the first period of 200, KRW 19,029,880 for the second period of 200, KRW 29,43,320 for the first period of 200, KRW 29,443,320 for the second period of 201, KRW 35,146,740 for the second period of 201, and KRW 14,783,80 for the first period of 202.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the furniture wholesale business in 105, 00, 00 ○○○○-dong 1-28 ○○○○○○○-dong 1-28 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff issued the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “the purchase tax invoice of this case”) with the supply value of KRW 1,979,356,00,000 from 2nd to 1st, 2002, and issued the supply value of KRW 1,979,356,00,000 from ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong 1-28 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and issued the sales tax invoice of this case with the supply value of KRW 4,416,428,00 and the sales tax invoice of each of the above case (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”).

B. On December 6, 2004, the Defendant: (a) deemed the instant sales and purchase tax invoice as the tax invoice for processing without real transaction; (b) filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff; and (c) imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 17,601,320 for the second term portion of value-added tax 199; (b) the first term portion of value-added tax 28,891,540 for the second term portion of 2000; (c) the second term portion of 2000, KRW 19,029,80 for the second term portion of 200; (d) the first term portion of 29,43,320 for the second term of 201; and (e) the second term portion of 201 to 35,146,740 for the second term of 201; and (e) the first term portion of 14,783

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, A1's evidence 1 to 6, and B's evidence 1 to 6

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased MDF from ○○ World, etc. and received the instant purchase tax invoice, and issued the instant sales tax invoice to ○○○ while selling the said MD. The instant transaction was all normal transaction, and the Defendant’s disposition that deemed it a processing transaction was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

○ Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

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 Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a 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 of value-added tax or tax amount

2. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of a final return;

○ Additional tax Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003)

(3) Where an entrepreneur falls under subparagraphs 1 and 2, an amount equivalent to 1/100 in cases where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted or where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or is entered differently from the fact, an amount equivalent to 2/100 in cases of a corporation, 5/100 in cases falling under subparagraph 3, and an amount equivalent to 10/1,000 in cases of a corporation which fall under subparagraph 3, shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount: Provided, That this shall not apply to the supply amount of the portion, the transaction of which is confirmed under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential

C. Determination

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the taxable 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 consistent with his/her own assertion in light of the position of easy presentation of 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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

In full view of the statements in No. 3, No. 5, and No. 9, and the testimony of ○○○○ witness, the Plaintiff, the representative of ○○○○○○○○○○○ and Park○, the representative of ○○○○ Timber, was aware of the Plaintiff through ○○○○○○○, a sales agent of ○○○○○○○○○○, at the time of conducting a tax investigation, and requested the Plaintiff to issue a tax invoice under the name of the Plaintiff. The amount remitted from the Plaintiff was immediately withdrawn and deposited into ○○○○○’s account, the representative of ○○○○○○○○○○○. After receiving a bill from ○○○○○○, the Plaintiff received a discount at an interest rate of 10%, and ○○○○○○○’s statement that there was no actual transaction between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○○, and that there was no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had actually purchased and traded the goods in question.

Therefore, the instant disposition that reported the instant sales and purchase tax invoice as a processing tax invoice is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.