2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

가. 원고는 전산시스템 용역의 제공 및 판매 등을 주된 영업으로 하는 법인으로서 2002.12.31.주식회사 □□션(그 후 회사명이 주식회사 ◁◁어로 변경되었고, 이하'□□션'이라고 한다)으로부터 컴팩 노트북 컴퓨터 500대의 거래와 관련하여 공급가액 859,000,000원의 매입세금계산서(이하'이 사건 매입세금계산서'라고 한다)를 수취하고, 같은 날 위 거래와 관련하여 주식회사 ◇◇기술(이하'◇◇기술'이라고 한다)에 공급가액 881,450,000원의 매출세금계산서(이하'이 사건 매출세금계산서'라고 한다)를 교부하여 이에 따른 부가가치세를 신고하였다.

B. On June 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing the value-added tax of KRW 32,564,000 (hereinafter “value-added tax”) pursuant to Article 22(3) and (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff was supplied with 500 computers in Compact (hereinafter “value-Added Tax”); or (b) the Plaintiff was supplied with 500 computers from △△△△, but the details entered in the list of total tax invoices by seller and seller were entered differently from the facts and reported the value-added tax for the second period of 2002 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 3, 5 evidence (including each number), Eul 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, in fact, supplied 500 Compact-North computers from △△ Company, supplied them to △△ Technology, which is not a processing transaction.

(2) The instant disposition was made after the lapse of the exclusion period of five years under Article 26-2(1)3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even though a taxpayer who has filed a tax base return within the statutory due date of return in accordance with the legislative intent and strict interpretation, commits fraud or other unlawful acts, if the taxpayer evades national taxes, or fails to receive refund or deduction due to such fraudulent or unlawful acts, the exclusion period of imposition shall be returned to five years in principle, and even if the relevant taxpayer participated in the tax evasion, etc. of another taxpayer, it does not change unless there is any tax evasion or unlawful refund or deduction. In addition, the determination of whether there was a national tax on the method of filing a tax return shall be based on the main tax amount excluding additional tax. In addition, where the entrepreneur who has filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax or the amount of tax refund or deduction based on the processing tax invoice along with the processing tax invoice, the supply price on the processing tax invoice shall not be deemed to have established an abstract tax liability for such portion without the supply of goods or services subject to value-added tax, even if the input tax amount is deducted, it shall be deemed that there was a tax evasion or deduction related to the processing transaction exceeding the output tax amount (see Decision 2007Du.

With respect to this case, even if the Plaintiff reported value-added tax by entering the supply value on the purchase and sales tax invoice of this case on the sales invoice of this case in the list of total tax invoices by seller and by seller without real transaction with △△△ computer, as seen earlier, insofar as the supply value on the purchase tax invoice of this case (859,00,000) does not exceed the supply value on the sales tax invoice of this case (881,450,000) in substance, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not evade, refund, or deduct the Plaintiff’s value-added tax in relation to the transaction of this case, and even if the Plaintiff was found to have participated in the tax evasion, etc., of other taxpayers, that is, △△△ Technology, the exclusion period for imposition of the value-added tax of this case shall be 5 years under Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the disposition of this case shall not be deemed to have been null and void after the expiration of the period for imposition of value-added tax of 2, 2002.35.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.