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

Cheong-gu Office

On November 17, 2006, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 3,168,390 won for the first term of 2001 against the Plaintiff, value-added tax of 8,320,90 won for the second term of 2001, value-added tax of 8,164,960 won for the first term of 202, value-added tax of 4,561,970 won for the second term of 202, value-added tax of 4,561,970 won for the second term of 202, value-added tax of 7,550,370 won for the first term of 20

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence of No. 5, Eul evidence of No. 1 through No. 7-15, Eul evidence of No. 13-1, and No. 2:

A. From April 1, 2000 to September 30, 2003, the Plaintiff operated precious metal wholesale and retail business with the trade name of ○○○○○○○-dong 000-00 to ○○○○○○○.

B. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from ○○○△△△△△ (hereinafter “○○○○”) as follows. From the output tax amount for each taxable period, the Plaintiff deducted the value-added tax amount on the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount from the output tax amount for each taxable period, and reported and paid each value-added tax from January 2001 to January 2003.

Net

Taxation Period

Purchase

Value of supply (total value)

Amount of tax

Total Amount

1

1, 2001

2 Chapter 2

14,612,00 won

1,461,299 won

16,073,299 won

2

2, 2001

CHAPTER 6

40,491,394 won

4,049,139 won

4,540,533 won

3

1, 2002

CHAPTER 4

43,792,696 won

4,379,269 won

48,171,965 won

4

2, 2002

2 Chapter 2

24,363,635 won

2,436,363 won

26,799,98 won

5

1, 2003

Three Chapters

51,915,150 won

5,191,515 won

57,106,665 won

Total

17 Chapter 17

175,174,875 won

17,517,585 won

192,692,460 won

C. The Defendant notified the head of ○○○○ Tax Office of the taxation data that the tax invoice was issued without real transaction and deducted the pertinent input tax amount by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without real transaction. On November 17, 2006, the Defendant issued an increase and notification of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 3,168,390 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), value-added tax amounting to KRW 8,320,90 for the second half of 2001, value-added tax amounting to KRW 8,164,960 for the first half of 202, value-added tax amounting to KRW 4,561,970 for the second half of 202, value-added tax amounting to KRW 4,561,970 for the second half of 202, and value-added tax amounting to KRW 7,550,370 for the first half of 203 (hereinafter “each disposition”).

D. The plaintiff's objection was filed on February 8, 2007 and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on June 19, 2007, but was dismissed on August 30, 2007.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff traded normally from ○○○○ △△ to purchase the current tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice and deposit the price in full, the Defendant’s imposition of each of the instant tax dispositions based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without real transactions solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was an enterprise accused of ○○ △△△△ by means of material material was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

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 that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction, on the basis of direct evidence or circumstances. If the defendant has proved to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to dispute the illegality of the defendant's disposition to present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

According to ○○○○○○○-2’s ○○○○-2’s ○○○○ 2’s ○○○ 2’s ○○ 2’s ○○ 2’s ○ 2’s 3- 15-2’s 15-2, the Plaintiff purchased a total of KRW 214,036,00 from 1st 203 ○ 2’s 20- 2’s 3- 2’s 20- 2’s 3- 2’s 3- 2’s 2- 2’s 3- 2’s 2- 3’s 2- 3’s 1’s 2- 3’s 2- 3’s 2- 3’s 2- 3’s 2- 1’s 2- 3’s 2- 3’s 1’s 6-1’s -- 1’s 200.

According to the above legal principles and the facts of recognition, most of the purchasing places and sales places of ○○○ juice were found to have been engaged in a processed transaction rather than a real transaction. Accordingly, the suspicions on ○ ○○ juice was placed on the basis of data, and the Plaintiff received money, the name of which is unclear from such ○ ○○ juice, and thereby, it can be deemed that the tax invoice of this case was proved to be the most false transaction. Thus, the Plaintiff must prove that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from ○ ○ juju and received it normally.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased goods on KRW 20,152,00,00, which was remitted from the above ○○△△△△, and stated that it was returned and received the payment, and that it did not clearly state the items to prove it, and that the Plaintiff failed to submit objective evidence, such as the content of the receipt and receipt of goods, the receipt of goods, and the current inventory status, which can prove the actual transaction with ○○○○△△△△△△, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the tax invoice of this case was a real transaction only on the basis of each of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence to prove that it is a real transaction, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

3. Conclusion

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

Relevant statutes

[Valued Tax]

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he/she shall deliver an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, at the time provided for in Article 9 (where Presidential Decree prescribes otherwise, the time otherwise, such time as prescribed by Presidential Decree). In such cases, a tax invoice may be modified, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error or correction, arises

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(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. The 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 items”) 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;