Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

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

A. On October 2, 200, the Plaintiff established a corporation that purchased and processed precious metal on the second floor of ○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○-63, and sells finished products, such as earing, etc., from August 2, 2001 to June 2004, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 145,054,893 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) from a stock company (hereinafter “○○○”) and reported and paid value-added tax by receiving the total purchase tax invoices of KRW 145,054,893 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”), and filed a report on corporate tax by including the said amount in deductible expenses at the time of reporting the corporate tax base and tax amount.

Division of machinery

Purchase

Value of Supply

201. 2

10

49,920,069 won

1, 2002

14

49,454,037 won

202. 2

6

13,815,497 won

1, 2003

7

7,495,99 won

203.2

9

17,700,796 won

100 1. 1

7

6,668,495 won

Total

145,054,893 won

B. As a result of the investigation, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed ○○ Fund as data, he/she requested the Plaintiff to vindicate the details of the tax invoice at issue after filing an accusation against Kim-ho, Ma○, Ma○, and Ma○nam, the actual operator of the ○ Fund.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s submission of financial transaction data, etc. on the issue of the tax invoice, the Defendant deemed the amount of KRW 65,953,00,00, excluding the amount of KRW 79,101,893, which was confirmed by the Plaintiff among the tax invoices, as a false tax invoice on September 1, 2007, value-added tax amounting to KRW 9,042,510,00 for the second period of February 1, 2001, KRW 593,760 for the first period of January 2002, KRW 5,593,760 for the first period of January 203, 203, KRW 123,030 for the first period of January 204, KRW 1206,70 for the first period of 204, KRW 39,979,00 for the corporate tax brought forward by the Plaintiff as a non-deductible tax invoice, and issued a revised disposition for the business year of this case.

D. On October 12, 2007, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the instant disposition from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on January 14, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 to 2-4, Eul evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, despite the fact that ○○○ was actually purchased from the gold and received the instant purchase tax invoice, deemed that the instant purchase tax invoice was a false tax invoice issued without a real transaction and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be admitted by each entry of the above-mentioned evidence and of Nos. 11 and 12.

1) According to the Seoul regional tax office’s written explanation of the completion of investigation on ○○ Fund, the principal act on the sales sector was conducted as follows.

A) It is almost 47,971,826,00 won that ○○, an employee of ○○○ branch of the Industrial Bank of Korea, made a substitute transfer of the sales amount to the account in the name of the sales office that received the processed tax invoices in order to disguised the actual sales as if the sales were issued by processing the sales tax invoices to the customer in need of the tax invoices without sales.

(b)The source of money entered in the payment by proxy is the amount raised by ○○○ (the representative director of the official injury) and paid the money to the processing purchasing unit ordered by ○○○○○ (the amount of ○○○○). After depositing the money into the account, ○○○○ was made repeatedly and later returned to ○○○○. Although ○○○ was directly deposited into the account, ○○○ was made later, ○○ was made later back, but ○○ was made back to ○○○ and issued a tax invoice by cash if the money is insufficient to make a payment by proxy.

C) Although the issuance of the processing tax invoice is subject to the direction of ○○○, most of the ○○○○○ (Substantial amount of ○○○○ was the representative director) was the employee’s prior deliberation, etc., and upon the request of the persons in need of the processing tax invoice, a tax invoice was issued for the amount calculated by converting the amount into ○○○ upon the date’s request, and later, the ○○ received the tax invoice by visiting the office

2) From October 20, 2001 to June 1, 2004, ○○○○○, a real operator of the gold, conspired with ○○○○, etc., and pretended to have actually sold gold at the office from October 20, 2001 to June 1, 2004. The judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the “criminal judgment”) became final and conclusive around that time, on January 27, 2005 due to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with regard to the crime of “an amount of KRW 1,300 to KRW 1,350 per 1,350 per money according to the weight of the amount stated in the tax invoice, and prepared and issued the false sales tax invoice as described in the attached Table (2).”

3) The annexed list of the relevant criminal judgment (2) contains all the tax invoices purchased from the Plaintiff’s ○○ Fund.

C. Determination

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove the falsity of the tax invoice on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. However, if it is proved that the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was prepared falsely without real transactions by the defendant who is the tax authority, and it is disputed as to whether it is actual expenses and the taxpayer's purpose of use of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment have been proved to the extent that it is reasonable that the other party to the tax payment is false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data such as the book keeping and documentary evidence about the actual expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997)

On the other hand, as shown in the above facts of recognition, ○○ Fund, as shown in the above facts, was proved to be the so-called data that issued a tax invoice without real transactions while operating Kim Ho-ho, Cho Jong-soo, and Cho Jong-nam, and was convicted of having issued a tax invoice without real transactions. In light of the fact that the tax invoice was indicated in the crime list of all the above convictions, the tax invoice of this case, excluding all the financial data, is proved to be a false tax invoice. Therefore, the burden of proving that the actual purchase was made as stated in the tax invoice of this case, and there is no evidence to prove the above fact, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.