Article 21 (Determination and Amount of Tax)

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

A. The Plaintiff is a businessman who runs precious metal retail business, etc. under the trade name of ○○○-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○-dong 355, '○ Funeral Service'.

B. The Plaintiff received 59 copies of the purchase tax invoice on the current purchase of KRW 231,358,000 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from a stock company (hereinafter “○○○”) during the taxable period between the first and second years from 2001, and then returned and paid value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount for each of the taxable periods.

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff received each of the instant tax invoices from the Plaintiff on data without real transactions; and (b) deducted the pertinent input tax amount, and then notified the Plaintiff of the amount of value-added tax for the first period of October 1, 2006, KRW 3,889,930 for the first period of 2001; (c) value-added tax for the second period of 2001 for the second period of 201; (d) KRW 10,817,910 for the first period of 202; (e) value-added tax for the second period of 202, value-added tax for 11,315,890 for the second period of 203; and (e) value-added tax for the first period of 5,399,10 for the first period of 203; and (e) KRW 7,358,540 for the second period of 203 for each disposition (hereinafter

D. The plaintiff appealed against the defendant on January 2, 2007, but the defendant dismissed the above objection on January 26, 2007. The plaintiff again requested a judgment with the National Tax Tribunal on April 27, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the above appeal on November 6, 2007.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-6, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1-2, Eul evidence 1-6, Eul evidence 1-1 through 6, and Eul evidence 14-1-6

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

○○금은이 이른바 자료상이라 하더라도 그 매출거래 전부가 가공거래는 아니고 일부는 실물거래이며, 원고는 계좌이체를 하거나 수표 또는 현금을 지급하는 방식으로 ○○금은으로부터 실제로 지금을 구입한 후 일반 소비자에게 판매하였으므로 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 거래가 가공거래임을 저†뉠�한 피고의 이 사건 각 처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 21 (Determination and Amount of Tax)

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On January 16, 2001, 2001, ○○○ was established and operated until July 2, 2002, and ○○○ was actually operated by ○○○○ as the representative director from July 2, 2002 to June 5, 2004, which was the cessation date.

2) As a result of an investigation into a criminal charge of ○○○ Fund, the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) was a processed sales related to a false tax invoice (2,762 enterprises, 24,852), 62,732,922,178 won is a false processed sales related to a credit card sales slip (73.6% of the processed sales ratio); (b) ○○ Fund, an employee of ○○ Fund, was 47,9,00,00 won which was reported during the first taxable period of value-added tax from the first taxable period of the year 201 to the first taxable period of the year 2004; (c) was 127,081,127,397,000 won which was falsely traded in the name of the transaction partner; and (d) was notified of the details of the processed sales fund in the name of the transaction partner to be returned to the ○○ Fund in the name of the transaction partner; and (d) was notified to the remainder of the processed Fund in the account.

3) On November 2, 2004, Kim ○-○ received from a tax official belonging to the Seoul Regional Tax Office an investigation related to a suspected charge of ○○○ in data, and recognized that each of the instant tax invoices prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff was due to a processing transaction without real transactions.

4) The first instance court's judgment was final and conclusive after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the year of imprisonment with labor due to the Seoul Western District Court 2004Kahap204, 385 (merged). The first instance court's judgment was sentenced to a three-year imprisonment with labor due to the Seoul Western District Court 2004Kahap368, 2005Kahap242, 49 (combined). After being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years, the first instance court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and 2006No62 (Separation), the Seoul Western District Court 206No62 (Separation), the appellate court of which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and a fine of five hundred million won.

5) The Plaintiff: (a) deposited the Bank’s savings account in ○○ Bank’s own account; (b) deposited the Bank’s account in ○ Bank’s account; (c) deposited the Bank’s account in ○ Bank’s account; (d) KRW 1,000,000 on August 27, 2002; (e) KRW 2,50,000 on August 29, 2002; (c) KRW 4,500,000 on September 6, 2002; and (d) withdrawn the cash or checks in ○ Bank’s deposit account in 17,10,000 on a sum of KRW 2,50,000 on September 15, 2003; and (e) withdrawn each of the instant tax invoices at a time similar to the date on which each of the instant tax invoices was issued.

6) Meanwhile, ○○○○○○○○ in the name of the Plaintiff’s “○ Funeral” in relation to each of the instant tax invoices as indicated below several times, as indicated in the following table, was paid by proxy in the form of deposits without passbook payments.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 6-2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(i) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements shall be vested in the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule are revealed in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for the application of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5604, Nov. 15, 2007).

In addition, even if an administrative trial is not bound by the fact-finding in a criminal trial, the fact that the same fact-finding is recognized as the crime of the same criminal trial is a flexible evidence, and thus, it cannot be recognized that it is inconsistent with the facts unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative failure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 1999).

2) In light of the above legal principles, ○○○○○○○○○ Bank’s sales of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Fund, each of the above 1, 4, and 15 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the testimony and arguments stated in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Fund’s name, whichever was recorded on the 6th anniversary of the above 202 and 203, had the Plaintiff prepare and deliver each of the instant tax invoices to the Plaintiff without real transaction. The ○○○○○○○○○○○ Fund’s own account opened on the 5th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the 1st 203rd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 203rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 201st 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 201st 2nd 3rd 3rd 22.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s each disposition of this case against the Plaintiff is lawful, on the grounds that the Defendant deemed the transaction under each of the tax invoices of this case as a processing transaction. Therefore, the other Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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