가공매입액이 적출되자 실제 매출도 과대계상되었다는 주장의 당부 (골프연습장)[국승]
The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual sales have been overestimated upon the recovery of the processed purchase amount (the golf practice range)
Where a taxpayer asserts that the tax base reported by him/her was wrong in a tax return method, the liability to prove that the initial tax base reported by the taxpayer was wrong shall be the taxpayer, and the credibility of the tax return is not recognized, although it was excessively reported.
Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s revocation of the disposition for the correction of value-added tax of KRW 7,321,60 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 2003, KRW 10,836,100 for the first period of value-added tax for the year 2004, and KRW 7,901,460 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 2004 (the Plaintiff sought revocation of the payment order for value-added tax of KRW 27,698,748 for the Plaintiff on November 8, 2006, while the above amount was stated below, the Defendant made a prior notice of taxation on November 20, 206, which was already revoked ex officio by the Defendant under the prior notice of taxation for the second period of the year 2003, and it cannot be said that the prior notice of taxation for the first period of the year 204, respectively, was sought by the Plaintiff for revocation of each corrective disposition).
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From May 25, 2002, the Plaintiff has been operating a driving range (hereinafter “instant driving range”) in 00 from ○○-dong, ○○-dong, Cheongju-si from around 2002.
B. The Plaintiff received each tax invoice of KRW 8,605,00 for supply price of KRW 8,605,00 for the second period of 2003 from Nonparty ○○○○○ Company, KRW 54,634,00 for the first period of 2004, KRW 10,396,000 for the second period of 2004, and KRW 37,010,000 for the supply price of KRW 37,00 for the second period of 2003, and KRW 20,072,00 for the first period of 204, and KRW 46,221,00 for supply price for the second period of 204 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”), and filed a tax invoice for the second period from February 2, 2003 to 204 (hereinafter “the instant taxable period”).
C. On August 28, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the amount of value-added tax for the instant taxable period would be presumed to be KRW 25,89,993 in total, because the instant tax invoice is false, should be deducted from the input tax amount.
D. On September 26, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review by asserting that “The instant tax invoice is a processed tax invoice, but it is true that it is an excessive appropriation of sales in 2003 and 2004, and thus, it is necessary to cancel the imposition of value-added tax.” However, the Plaintiff did not recognize that the amount of sales was a processed transaction in the pre-assessment review as it is reasonable to impose value-added tax.
E. In accordance with the above pre-assessment review decision on November 8, 2006, the Defendant issued a revised disposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003, value-added tax 7,321,660 won, value-added tax for the first period of 2004, value-added tax 10,836,100 won, and value-added tax for the second period of 204, value-added tax 7,901,460 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
F. After that, on November 20, 2006, the Defendant issued a prior notice to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2006 that the sum of the value-added tax should be collected from the first half of 2003 to the second half of 2004 (including the additional tax) and revoked ex officio.
G. On February 5, 2007, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on February 5, 2007, but was dismissed on October 2, 2007.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The plaintiff's assertion
In order to operate the instant golf driving range, the Plaintiff made a tax return by lowering the cash sales amount of approximately KRW 80 million in 2003, and KRW 350 million in 2004, and the instant tax invoice was issued to meet the balance of sales and purchase. However, since the instant tax invoice was false, or since the Plaintiff filed a false tax invoice from 2003 to 2004, it was unlawful to impose an input tax amount by revising only the input tax amount, in order to raise the credit reputation of the bank due to concerns over demand for repayment of loans and interest rates of the bank.
(b) Related statutes;
Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)
(c) Fact of recognition;
(1) The Plaintiff has been operating the instant golf practice range from June 15, 2002 to December 31, 2007. During that period, the sales and card sales reported by the Plaintiff are as follows.
1, 2003
2 2003
1, 2004
2, 2004
1, 2005
Reported turnover (won)
Cards
(Rate: %)
139,976,000
(A) 32.2%)
15,419,00
( approximately 30.9%)
109,560,000
(A) 3.2%)
Total
227.411.460
454,492,636
434,346,412
373,370,420
329,804,433
Reported turnover (won)
2, 2005
1, 2006
2, 2006
1, 2007
2, 2007
145,541,026
68,242,025
82,524,286
3,209,934
2,589,094
(2) The details of loans that the Plaintiff received from financial institutions while operating the instant golf driving range are as follows.
Financial Institutions
Date of loan
Amount of loan;
Interest Rate
Date of Repayment
○ Hea Bank
March 15, 2002
30,000,000 won
10%
August 14, 2006
○○ Bank
May 17, 2002
150,000,000 won
9%
February 15, 2007
○ Exchange Bank
July 23, 2002
100,000,000 won
7.5% by mass
○ Bank
September 25, 2002
70,000,000 United Nations
2.8% by mass
April 20, 2008
○○ Bank
November 28, 2003
15,000,000 won
6.5% by mass
February 15, 2007
○○ Bank
December 18, 2003
500,000,000
7%
February 15, 2007
○ Savings Bank
January 18, 2005
200,000,000 won
1.5% by mass
January 18, 2006
(3) While operating the instant golf driving range, the Plaintiff sent related data, such as the head of the sales office, receipts, and copies of bankbooks, to the Seoul Tax Accountants Office for the return of value-added tax and corporate tax. Based on the data, the cash receipts and disbursements prepared by the tax accountant were written as cash receipts and disbursements in the item “other than golf practice fees” from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004 as of the end of each month. The less amount was from 9,948,000 won ( January 31, 2003) to 210,319,450 won ( September 30, 200), and the sum of the amounts was approximately KRW 409,171,000, approximately 52,580,380,00 won ( September 30, 204).
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 8 through 11, Evidence Nos. 2-3, and Evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
C. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
There is no dispute between the parties that the tax invoice of this case is false, but the plaintiff has already reported and paid value-added tax for the taxable period of this case, and the plaintiff has filed a claim for correction of the tax base reported by the plaintiff because it was unfairly excessive. The liability to prove that the initial tax base reported by the taxpayer was wrong in the case where the taxpayer asserts that the tax base reported by him was wrong in the form of tax return, such as value-added tax, the liability to prove that the initial tax base was wrong
On the other hand, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 1 to 205 cannot be found to have excessive tax base for the taxable period of this case. Rather, on the basis of the data sent by the plaintiff for the return of value-added tax and corporate tax, the cash transaction statement prepared by the tax accountant is more than the plaintiff. The card sales amount for 1/2005, which is outside the taxable period of this case, are similar to the card sales amount for the taxable period of this case (the plaintiff's 203 and 204 calculated excessive cash sales amount after receiving the notice of tax notice of this case. The plaintiff pointed out that it is similar to the card sales amount for 1/200, 2005, 300, 2005, 200, 2005, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.)
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.