2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-7, and evidence 14-1 through 4:

A. The Plaintiff, a company established for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. storage batteries, deducted the total value of supply received from ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○○○”) during the taxable period from the first half to the first half of the year 2000 of value-added tax (hereinafter “value of supply for the first half of the year 200 + KRW 36,151,000 + the value of supply for the second half of the year 200 + KRW 24,735,000 + the value of supply for the second half of the year 200 + the value of supply for the first half of the year 200 + the value of supply for the first half of the year 201 + the value of supply for the first half of the year 20,710,000 won (hereinafter “tax invoice for this case”).

B. On September 3, 2003, the Defendant: (a) received a notice from the head of ○○○○○ from the head of ○○ Tax Office that all of the instant tax invoices were issued without real transactions; and (b) received an investigation into ○○○○○○○○○, etc. on the supply price stated in the instant tax invoice for the first half year of 221,596,000, only 15,68,000 of the supply price stated in the instant tax invoice for the taxable period of value-added tax for the first half year of 200; and (c) recognized that the tax invoice for KRW 205,908,00 for the remaining supply price was a false tax invoice issued without real transactions and deducted the input tax amount for the said tax invoice; and (d) issued the Plaintiff on January 3, 2004, issued a notice of imposition of KRW 3,946,280, value-added tax for the first half year of 200, value-added tax amount for 4,5801.

C. On March 31, 2004, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial disposition and filed a request for an adjudication with the National Tax Tribunal. On October 7, 2004, the National Tax Tribunal determined that the initial disposition tax base and tax amount should be corrected by reflecting the fact that the Plaintiff had a real transaction on the total amount of KRW 34,520,00 (including purchase tax amount) transferred to an account, etc. under the name of ○○○○○○, among the remaining tax invoices after deducting KRW 15,68,000 from the value of supply in the instant tax invoice.

(d) In accordance with the above decision of the National Tax Tribunal, the Defendant reduced the value-added tax of KRW 24,735,00 (including purchase tax) for the second period of 200 which was recognized as an additional transaction (27,208,50 won including purchase tax) or the value-added tax of KRW 6,646,820 for the first period of 201 (7,31,502 won including purchase tax) from the original actual transaction amount of KRW 15,68,00 which was recognized as an actual transaction (as a result, the Defendant reduced the remainder of KRW 34,520,00 which was recognized as an actual transaction from the original disposition of this case, KRW 30,00 for the 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 306, KRW 1600 for the second period of value-added tax (including purchase tax amount), KRW 160,300, KRW 2086, KRW 20816,30606.36

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) From April 200, the Plaintiff supplied semi-finished goods, such as storage batteries, to ○○○○○○○, and traded the finished goods from ○○○○○○○○○○○ upon supply of the finished goods, by settling the price for the supply value of the finished goods exceeding the supply value of the finished goods. From May 16, 2000 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff agreed to take over the supply value of the finished goods in excess

(2) However, since ○○○○○○○ cannot recover the pre-paid price of a finished product at a different place and supplied it to the Plaintiff, it received a purchase tax invoice from ○○○○○○○○○○ in advance for the machinery and equipment, parts, etc., by recovering the pre-paid price, and thereafter purchased an amount equivalent to KRW 73,00,000 as a finished product from ○○○○○○○○○○ around February 2001 and an amount equivalent to KRW 87,00,000 for gold and assembly equipment (the Plaintiff alleged the above argument earlier) from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in order to recover the pre-paid price of a finished product at around April 201.

(3) The Plaintiff paid 35,520,00 won in cash and 4,457,380 won in promissory note 67,974,400 to ○○○○○○○○○○○○ by account transfer, and delivered 67,974,400 won in a promissory note payment (the Plaintiff’s financial status is good and thus there was no need to get a discount on a bill from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○). Otherwise, the Plaintiff claimed 17,257,788 won in consideration of the payment claim on the goods supplied to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and 23,983,956 won in consideration of the payment claim on the parts to be taken over by ○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon the termination of the lease).

(4) Meanwhile, based on 17,257,00 won recognized as the Plaintiff’s sales, 330 won per unit price supplied by the Plaintiff to ○○○○○○○○○○○, and 2,100 won per unit price per unit supplied by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff’s purchase amount is KRW 109,817,272, and at least 92,560,272, which remains after subtracting KRW 17,257,00 from the 109,817,272 of the instant tax invoice, should be additionally recognized as an actual transaction.

(5) Therefore, the instant disposition, which recognized the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice despite the fact that there was an actual transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice, was unlawful (the Plaintiff asserted that, among the supply price of the instant tax invoice 221,596,000, the Plaintiff had to be recognized as an additional transaction for all KRW 187,076,00, which was the remainder after deducting only KRW 34,520,000, which was recognized as an actual transaction by the National Tax Tribunal, from among the supply price of the instant tax invoice 221,596,000, which was recognized as an actual transaction, it shall be deemed that there was an error in the fact that the actual transaction should be recognized as an additional transaction for all other than KRW 34,520,00.

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 5, 8-3, 5, 14, 33 through 36, Eul evidence Nos. 8, 9-1, 2, 3, 10, 17, 17, 19-1, 2, and 20; Gap evidence No. 8-8, 14, 20; Eul evidence No. 12; Eul evidence No. 12; the testimony of the first instance court 12; and some testimony of the first instance court ○○○, a witness 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) As a result of an investigation on the return of value-added tax by ○○○○○○, the head of ○○○○ Tax Office confirmed that ○○○○ received processed tax invoices, and that ○○○○○○, including the Plaintiff, issued the processed sales tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,391,080,000 including the instant tax invoices from the first quarter of the year 200 to the first quarter of the value-added tax year 2001, and issued them to the Defendant around September 203.

(2) Around December 2003, the Defendant conducted an investigation on the representative director Kim ○○, who had practically operated ○○○○○○○. At the time of the investigation, Kim ○○, 20,00 won of the remainder of the supply value, excluding value of KRW 15,68,00,000, which was actually sold during the first quarter of year 200 of value-added tax, out of the tax invoice of this case, was issued on the discount of ○○○○○○○○○○, without real transactions. With respect to the portion of KRW 160,710,000, which was issued during the first quarter of year 201, the Defendant did not sell the machinery or equipment owned by ○○○○○○○○○ to the Plaintiff, which was falsely issued for the extension of the appearance of ○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff paid for the finished product and cash, promissory notes, etc. without discount payments to the Plaintiff.

(3) The details of the settlement of bills against the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ (Evidence A No. 5) include: (a) the sum of KRW 47,050,00 among the total face value of KRW 67,974,50,000, total face value of KRW 47,050, total face value of KRW 9,974,50.

(4) At the time of filing a corporate tax return in 2000, the Plaintiff did not have filed a report with each of the above bills, bills, etc.

(5) From May 16, 200 to 200, the Plaintiff leased a shooting machine, gold, mination machine, coloring machine, and hodra in the ○○○○ factory. After that, on April 23, 2001, when a fire occurred at the ○○○○○ factory, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a reimbursement with the representative director ○○○○○○ and one co-defendant, and the appellate court of the lawsuit (Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na42642) (Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na42) decided that “the Plaintiff transferred all the above machinery and equipment to ○○○○○○○○ upon agreement on March 3, 2001, the judgment of the court of final appeal became final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff asserted that “the Plaintiff occupied the above machinery and equipment to ○○○○○○○ upon acquiring the new type of rent around 301.”

(6) ○○○○○ 소유의 기계장치인 사출기, 분쇄기, 착색기, 축전지라인 등에 대하여 1999. 12. 29. ㅇㅇㅇㅇ은행을 채권자로 하는 근저당권이 설정되었다.

(7) On May 1, 200, the contract (Evidence No. 8-3) entered into between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○ at the time of leasing a factory, equipment, etc. from the date of the lease (Evidence No. 8-3) or the contract entered into between him and her for a period of one year from March 1, 2001 (Evidence No. 20) does not stipulate that the Plaintiff “acquisition or purchase the machinery and equipment, etc., owned by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○”. On the summary balance sheet table with the Plaintiff, the fixed asset amount was not changed when comparing the year 200 and 201. On the summary balance sheet with the Plaintiff, the fixed asset purchase column in the report on the general subject of value-added tax in 201 was written as 0 won. Meanwhile, on June 12, 2001, the ○○ chief issued the fire certificate certificate to ○○○○○ issued the victim of the said fire.

(8) In light of the content of each period of transaction report (No. 8, 14 of A, No. 12 of A), trade dates, items, and trade amounts related to the purchase of machinery and facilities owned by ○○○○○○○○, are inconsistent with each other.

(9) The Plaintiff failed to submit a sales contract, etc. on the instant facilities up to now, and asserted that the account book stating the kind, quantity, etc. of specific goods traded with ○○○○○○○○ was destroyed by fire. At the latest, the Plaintiff submitted the instant tax invoice and the account book related thereto, which was submitted as a documentary evidence (Ga Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16-1 through 25, etc.).

(10) There is no record that a witness of the first instance court, who testified as an employee of the Plaintiff, obtained income as an employee of the Plaintiff under the current status of earned income data (Evidence B No. 10).

D. Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the Defendant merely issued a processed sales tax invoice, etc. without a real transaction, and issued it to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant issue tax invoice was prepared and issued by ○○○○○○○○○○○○, the representative director of ○○○○○○○○○○○, and issued the instant issue tax invoice without a real transaction. In light of the above, the instant issue tax invoice is issued without a real transaction in which ○○○○○○○○○, the issuer of ○○○○○○○○○, actually supplied goods or services. In fact, the instant issue tax invoice is issued without a real transaction in which ○○○○○, the instant issue tax invoice was indicated, and its contents are true (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu492, Dec. 13, 1983).

(2) With respect to this case, evidence corresponding to the plaintiff's above assertion 1 to 8, 3-1, 2, 4, 5, 6-1 to 4, 7, 8-1, 12-1, 2, 13, 15, 16-1 to 25, 17-1, 18, 19-21, 23-1, 24, 25-1, 25-3, 3, 26, 27, 8-8, 14, 20-14, 20, 12-12 and 16-1, 17-1, 17-1 to 25, 25-1, 3, 26, 27, and 11-1, 8-14, 20, 12-20, 12-1, and 1-2 of the testimony of each party.

However, the Plaintiff’s first instance court and the first instance court, arguing that the issue of this case was not destroyed by fire, and then submitted it late from the first instance court to the second instance court. ② Operation of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, stated that the Plaintiff did not supply the goods to the Plaintiff or sell the machinery or equipment owned by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not proper for the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale during each taxable period. ③ It was recognized that the Plaintiff returned all of the goods to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s supply of the goods on the premise that the purchase and sale of the goods was not proper for the first instance court’s agreement on the settlement of the goods.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.