Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff, who was engaged in the manufacturing business of precious metals, etc. with the trade name of “○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○,” was issued seven copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 85,569,00 (hereinafter “tax invoice of this case”) (hereinafter “the tax invoice of this case”) in total from the supply value of ○○-ju (hereinafter “○○”) every seven times between the period from February 25, 2001 to January 30, 2002 as indicated in the following table, and filed a return after deducting it from the input tax amount.

No.

Date of transaction

Items

Quantity (kg)

Value of supply (cost)

Date of transfer

Amount of remittance (won)

1

oly 25, 2001

now,

1

11,406,060

oly 25, 2001

12,546,00

2

.01.08.07

now,

1

11,078,787

.01.08.07

12,186,00

3

.1, 2001

now,

1

11,757,575

.1, 2001

12,933,00

4

October 16, 2001

now,

1.168

14,090,527

oly 16, 2001

15,500,000

5

November 17, 2001

now,

1

11,672,727

November 17, 2001

12,840,000

6

December 10, 2001

now,

1.181

13,636,355

December 10, 2001

15,000,000

7

1.20.30

now,

1

11,927,272

1.20.30

13,120,000

Total

85,569,303

94,125,000

C. The Defendant notified ○○ Head of ○○ Tax Office of the taxation data that ○△△△△ issued a tax invoice without real transaction. The Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice issued without real transaction; and (b) deducted the input tax amount on August 01, 2006; and (c) issued the instant disposition of imposing the instant tax on the Plaintiff to rectify and notify 2,908,610 won, and value-added tax 2,306,670 won for the first period of 2002.

E. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and requested to the National Tax Tribunal on November 06, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the disposition of this case on December 26, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 3 evidence 1,2, Gap 4 through 10 evidence, Eul 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff, as a small business proprietor who manufactures and sells counter-ins, etc. after processing now, purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the tax invoice of this case from ○○△△, and transferred all the proceeds to the account of ○○ △△△, etc., the Plaintiff concluded that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without any specific proof solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was an enterprise that was accused of ○○ △△△○ as data, and that the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(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. An 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”) 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;

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove the falsity of the tax invoice of this case based on direct evidence or all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) According to ○○○○ Tax Office’s statement on the instant tax invoice: (a) as a result of conducting an investigation on suspicion of the fact of ○○○○○○ Tax Office’s deposit account from 03.05 to 31, 2003 on the data during the period from 2001 to 31, it is recognized that ○○○ Tax Office determined ○○○○○ Tax Office as the data and filed an accusation against its representative; (b) on the other hand, as follows: (c) notified ○○○ Tax Office of the submission of explanatory data on the instant tax invoice issued by ○○○○○○ Tax Office; (d) the Plaintiff did not directly issue the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff on the grounds that ○○○○ Tax Office did not directly issue the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff, based on the fact that ○○○○○ Tax Office issued the instant tax invoice without any false evidence, and (e) the Plaintiff did not directly issue the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff on the grounds that ○○○ Tax Office issued the instant tax invoice.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.