가공거래로 본 처분에 대해 실제 통신단말기를 매입했다는 주장의 당부 [국승]
Daegu High Court 2007Nu1911 ( October 24, 2008)
Review Division 2006-0072 (Law No. 26, 2006)
The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual purchase of the telecommunications terminal for the disposition was made through a processing transaction
It is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff purchased a telecommunications terminal on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff sold the goods of the non-party company, which are inventory assets, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
In comparison with the records of this case and the judgment of the court below, the allegation in the grounds of appeal by appellant is not accepted in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
[Tgu High Court 2007Nu1911 ( October 24, 2008)]
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2005 and the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 34,602,266 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why the judgment should be stated are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment mentioned in the following two paragraphs with respect to the matters asserted by the plaintiff, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
In light of the following facts: (a) although the non-party company reported the sales of the plaintiff 384,200,000 winners with respect to the value-added tax for the second period of February 2001 and paid the sales amount, the non-party company denied the purchase of the plaintiff corresponding to the above sales, and did not recognize the deduction or refund of the sales amount, it would result in the defendant's unjust profits; (b) the plaintiff purchased inventory assets and sold them to Da○○○○ on June 22, 2004; (c) the plaintiff submitted customer list; and (d) the plaintiff actually stored the products purchased from the non-party company, each tax invoice received from the non-party company was actually purchased, and thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the above tax invoice is false is unlawful.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 22 and 23, the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office, after investigating the non-party company on or around December 2004, confirmed the purchase price of the plaintiff on or around 2 years 2001 and 1 year 2003 as a processed sale, and recognized the fact that the tax base and tax amount of the non-party company was mitigated, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant would gain unjust profits by the disposition of this case is without merit. The plaintiff's sale of the inventory assets Gawawa on June 22, 2004, or the fact that the plaintiff kept the products of the non-party company, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff purchased the communications terminal equipment from the non-party company for each of the above taxable periods only based on each statement of customer list and evidence Nos. 62-1 through 8 submitted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.
[Tgu District Court 2006Guhap2604, Nov. 21, 2007]
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
On July 4, 2005, the Defendant revoked each disposition of value-added tax of KRW 70,231,753 and value-added tax of KRW 34,602,266 for the second period of time of 2001 against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2005 (it is obvious that “70,231,743” as stated in the purport of the claim in the single complaint is a clerical error of KRW 70,231,753 as stated in the statement of claim).
1. Details of the disposition;
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or if Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4-2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-2, 5, Eul evidence 7, and 9-1 and 2 respectively, they can be acknowledged, and there is no other counter-proof.
A. From February 10, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) from around 10, 2001 to ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, “○○○○○○”, the Plaintiff closed the business on September 6, 2005; (b) on January 18, 2001, the Plaintiff established the vice governor of Nonparty Company’s ○○○○○○○○○○; (c) purchased a communication terminal device from Nonparty Company to sell it in the ○○○○○○○ region, and (d) concluded a contract with the branch office to act as an agent for the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.
B. The Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the tax base and the respective tax amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 201 and the first period of 2003, as indicated in each return column in the attached tax calculation table (hereinafter referred to as the “tax calculation table”), and received refund from the Defendant for the second period of 2001, the input tax amount of 34,512,608 and the first period of 24,794,576.
C. As a result of the investigation of the tax data conducted by the Plaintiff on June 4, 2005, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff unfairly deducted the input tax amount using the total purchase tax amount of KRW 384,200,000 in 201 and the total purchase tax amount of KRW 267,00,00 in 203 and the total purchase tax amount of KRW 267,00,000 in 200 in 201 as indicated in each correction column of the tax calculation table on July 4, 2005, when the Plaintiff filed each tax base and amount of the value-added tax on the second term portion of 201 and the first term value-added tax on the first term portion of 203 and each tax amount on the second term portion of 203; and then imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax on the second term portion of 201, the value-added tax on the second term portion of 70,231,753 and 137,2003.
D. However, upon considering the Plaintiff’s financial data on September 1, 2005, the Defendant: (a) recognized the amount equivalent to KRW 22,114,90 out of the total purchase tax invoice for the first period of 2003, which was recognized as the initial processing tax invoice for the first period of 2003; (b) recognized the amount equivalent to KRW 22,114,90 out of the total purchase tax invoice for the first period of 2003 as the actual transaction amount; and (c) calculated the tax base and the amount of the value-added tax for the first period of 203 as indicated in the re-revision column of the tax calculation sheet for the first period of 203 as the initial amount of value-added tax and the amount of such tax to be reduced from KRW 37,727,100 to KRW 34,602,266 (hereinafter referred to as the “final period of 201, 70, 231, 753 won; and (d) imposed the remaining portion of the remaining amount of value-added tax amount of KRW 3726.376.
2. Whether the disposition is lawful;
A. The parties' assertion
The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition in accordance with the relevant statutes.
On the other hand, the plaintiff actually purchased a total of KRW 384,200,000 from the non-party company from January 1, 2003 to June 30 of the same year the sum of KRW 267,00,000 from the non-party company's communication terminal devices such as ○○, etc. to the non-party company from July 1, 2001 to December 31 of the same year, and received each tax invoice, and thereafter deducted each corresponding input tax amount. Nevertheless, the defendant asserted that the total of KRW 384,20,200,00 and the total of KRW 267,00,00 from the non-party company's communication terminal devices such as ○○, etc. should not be deducted from the total of KRW 267,00,00,000 from the total of KRW 267,00,000, the total of KRW 200,708,204,000.
(b) Related statutes;
Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
(1) In light of the following: (a) ○○ Bank Co., Ltd.; (b) ○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; (c) ○○○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; (d) ○○○○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; and (e) ○○○○○○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; and (e) 1, 2, 4-2, 7-2, 10, 10-1 through 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 through 21; and (e) 1, 14, 18 through 21; and (e) 48, 308, 484, 208, 484, 208, 208, 3084, 408, 208, 380, 408, 200, 408, 208, 2008, 304, 2, etc.
(2) 한편 전항의 인정 사실에 반하는 듯한(바꾸어 말하면 원고가 소외 회사로부터 교부받은 2001년 제2기분 매입세금계산서 매입금 합계 384,200,000원 상당과 2003년 제1기분 매입세금계산서 합계 244,885,100원 상당이 진정한 세금계산서라는 원고의 주장에 부합하는 듯한) 갑 제2 내지 44호증, 갑 48호증의 1 내지 13, 갑 제49, 50, 51호증, 갑 제52호증의 1, 2, 갑 제53호증, 갑 제54호증의 1, 2, 갑 제55호증, 갑 제56호증의 1 내지 9, 갑 제57 내지 61호증, 을 제8호증의 각 기재, 갑 제45, 46, 47호증의 각 영상 및 증인 ○○○, ○○○의 각 증언은, ① 원고의 2001년 제2기분과 2003년 제1기분 각 매출액이 40,107,704원과 28,044,300원에 불과한 반면, 원고가 신고한 2001년 제2기분과 2003년 제1기분 각 매입액은 385,233,850원과 275,990,060원으로서 그 각 매출액의 약 9.6배와 약 9.8배에 달하는바, 이는 원고의 영업 속에는 ○○○ 등 통신단말기기 판매업뿐만 아니라 통신기기 설치업과 ○○○○○ 가입대행업 등이 포함되어 있는 점에 비추어 쉽게 수긍하기 어려운 점, ② 원고가 소외 회사에 지급하였다고 주장하는 570,822,600원 중 2002. 6. 26.자 계좌송금액 53,940,000원, 그 해 7. 10.자 계좌송금액 27,389,127원, 그해 8. 8.자 계좌송금액 87,860,873원, 그해 11. 8.자 계좌송금액 45,000,000원, 그 해 12. 5.자 계좌송금액 70,000,000원, 그 달 6.자 계좌송금액 23,900,000원과 2003. 6. 30.자 계좌송금액 22,114,900원 합계 330,194,900원을 제외한 나머지 240,627,700원(570,822,600원 - 330,194,900원)에 관하여는 그 자금출처 등에 관한 금융자료 등의 객관적인 증빙자료가 전혀 없는 점(2003. 6. 30.자 계좌송금액 22,114,900원은 피고가 이 사건 처분을 함에 있어 실거래가액으로 인정하여 그에 관한 매입세액을 공제하였음), ③ 2002. 6. 26.자 계좌송금액 53,940,000원, 그 해 7. 10.자 계좌송금액 27,389,127원 그해 8. 8.자 계좌송금액 87,860,873원, 그해 12. 5.자 계좌송금액 70,000,000원, 그 달 6.자 계좌송금액 23,900,000원 합계 263,090,000원은 소외 회사의 대표이사 ○○○, 그 ○○이사 ○○○과 그 직원 ○○○, ○○○ 등이 소외 회사 인근의 은행지점에서 입・출금한 점, ④○○정보통신 주식회사는 2002. 6. 말경과 그해 9. 말경 원고와 소외 회사와의 사이에 모두 5회에 걸쳐 실물거래가 없는 허위의 세금계산서 공급가액 합계 7억 4000만원 상당을 수수하는 위장업체인데, 원고는 ○○정보통신 주식회사와의 사이에 허위세금계산서 거래로 형사처벌(징역 8월, 집행유예 2년)까지 받은 점(을 제10호증의 1 내지 6의 각 기재), ⑤ 그런데 2002. 11. 8.자 계좌송금액 45,000,000원은 원고가 2002. 11. 7. ○○정보통신주식회사로부터 입금받아서 그 다음날 이를 인출하여 소외 회사의 계좌로 입금한 것인 점(갑 제11호증, 을 제18호증의 각 기재), ⑥ 2002. 12. 5.자 계좌송금액 70,000,000원 및 그 달 6.자 계좌송금액 23,900,000원도 2002. 12. 4. ○○정보통신 주식회사의 예금계좌에서 원고의 예금계좌로 입금되었다가 그달 5.과 그달 6. 인출되어 소외 회사의 예금계좌로 입금된 것인 점, ⑦ 원고가 소외 회사로 ○○○ 등 통신단말기기를 매입하였다고 주장하는 일자와 원고가 소외 회사에게 그 대금을 지급하였다고 주장하는 일자 사이에 상당히 큰 시차가 있는 점, ⑧ 계좌송금액 합계 330,194,900원 중 2002. 6. 26.자 계좌송금액 53,940,000원, 그해 7. 10.자 계좌송금액 27,389,127원, 그해 8. 8.자 계좌송금액 87,860,873원은 모두 소외 회사의 대표이사 ○○○등의 개인예금계좌에서 인출되어 소외 회사의 예금계좌로 입금된 것인 점, ⑨ 원고의 주장에 따르면, 원고는 2001. 2. 10.경부터 2004. 6. 22.경까지 사이에 수십 차례에 걸쳐 ○○○등 통신단말기기를 외상으로 매입하고 그 외상대금을 지급하였기 때문에 그 외상대금의 잔액이 수시로 크게 변동하였을 것인바, 그럼에도 불구하고 원고가 그 각 거래 당시마다 외상대금의 잔액을 확인한 장부 등의 증거자료를 전혀 제출하지 못하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때 이를 믿기 어렵다.
(3) Therefore, in calculating the Plaintiff’s tax base for the second period portion of 2001, the Plaintiff’s disposition in the instant case, which did not deduct the input tax amount corresponding to each amount in calculating the Plaintiff’s tax base for the second period portion of 2001, and the first period portion of 267,000,000 won for the first period portion of 203, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total purchase tax amount of KRW 244,885,10 (267,00,000 - 22,114,90) is a false tax invoice, is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion against this is not acceptable.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
the sum table of the amounts of taxes;
(unit: Won)
46 466 466 466 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 44
Sub-paragraph (b)
For the second period of 2001
From July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001
For the first term, 2003
From January 1, 2003 to June 30 of the same year)
쇠鹬 Mau3000 Gohap
G. G. M.S.
쇠鹬 Mau3000 Gohap
Man Mau3000 Ma
J. G. M. M. M.
Tax Base
(Sales)
40,107,704
40,107,704
28,044,300
28,044,300
28,044,300
Tax Rate
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
Sales amount
4,010,776
4,010,770
2,804,430
2,804,430
2,804,430
Purchase Price
385,233,850
1,033,850
275,990,060
8,990,060
31,104,950
Purchase Tax Amount
38,523,385
103,385
27,599,006
899,006
3,110,495
Amount of tax credit
-34,512,608
3,907,385
-24,794,576
1,905,424
-306,065
Unfair Refund
Additional Collection Tax Amount
34,512,608
24,794,576
24,488,511
Additional Tax
31,811,760
11,027,100
10,113,755
Amount of tax notified after deduction
(Refunded Tax Amount)
(34,512,608)
70,231,753
(24,794,576)
37,727,100
34,602,266
Related Acts and subordinate statutes
Value-Added Tax Act
Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)
Article 21 (Rectification)