자료상으로 고발된 자로부터 수취한 금지금 매입세금계산서의 매입세액 공제[국패]
Purchase tax amount deduction for gold bullion purchase tax invoice received from the person accused on the data
It is recognized that the purchase price of gold bullion was remitted to a deposit account, and the quantity of gold bullion close to the quantity of the purchased gold bullion was sold to the consumer. The fact that the purchaser was accused of criminal charges on the ground that there is no evidence that the source of the remitted fund was returned or remitted after the purchase of gold bullion was not recognized as the purchaser.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)
1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 12,289,050 on September 10, 2007 against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2007 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 17, 2001, the Plaintiff closed ○○ Industries, etc. on December 31, 2003. From 2003 to 22, 2003, the Plaintiff received 20,116.37g from 0,13,867 won (including value-added tax) and received 19 copies of purchase tax invoices from 00,5 (the total amount of 84,794,898 won) and then received 20,50,000,000 won from 20,000,000 won from 30,000,000,000 won (the total amount of 20,000 won) and received from 20,000,000 won from 30,000,000 won (the aggregate of value-added tax invoices, 49,3064,000 won).
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 3-1 through 19, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff actually purchased the tax invoice from ○○○○○ as stated in the tax invoice of this case and paid the price. The defendant's disposition of this case, which was made on the ground that the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice different from the fact that it was received without real transaction, is unlawful.
B. Determination
(1) In principle, the burden of proving whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, or the value of supply, which is a tax base, is imposed on the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992). However, only where the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, the other party should prove the circumstances that the pertinent facts do not constitute the
(2) In the instant case, according to the evidence evidence No. 5, since the head of Samsung Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the ○○○○ World, he/she deemed that the purchase tax invoice and 178 sales tax invoice received from 12 companies in the second taxable period of value-added tax 2004 was a false tax invoice received without real transactions, and determined ○○○○ World as data and filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff on suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Meanwhile, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff transferred the purchase price from the Plaintiff’s bank account in the name of the Plaintiff’s name to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not a false tax invoice received without real transactions, based on the following circumstances, based on the facts that the Plaintiff received the purchase price from the Plaintiff’s bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff received the same amount to 306.7.286.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.