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

A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of producing plastics in the trade name of ○○○○○○-dong 192 ○○○○○○○○-dong 192 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong 20 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, was issued seven copies of a tax invoice of KRW 43,60,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) during the taxable period of 201 as follows, deducted the supply value on the said tax invoice from the input tax amount, and filed a return of value-added tax for the second period of 201.

B. The Defendant, on March 1, 2007, issued the tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice without real transaction, deemed the tax invoice as a false tax invoice, and deducted the input tax amount, and issued a correction and notification of KRW 8,177,140 to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2001 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 23, 2007, but was dismissed on October 17, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 5-1 through 7, Gap evidence 12, 14, 16, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case by the Defendant was unlawful since there was a real transaction corresponding to the tax invoice of this case, such as purchase of gold and scriptive items, such as in fact as stated in the tax invoice of this case from 00 ○ ○ ○ Ma- Close Ma-, and payment of 3,50,000 won on June 30, 2001, 1,60,000 won on October 26, 2001, 13,50,000 won on November 15, 201, 24,000,000 won on December 15, 2001, and 2,560,000 won on January 21, 202, 200, which corresponds to the tax invoice of this case, since there was a real transaction corresponding to the tax invoice of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff received five copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 51,430,000, in total, the supply value of KRW 51,430,000 from ○○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma○ Ma, and seven copies of the instant tax invoices of KRW 43,60,000, in total, during the second taxable period of 201.

(2) From the Plaintiff’s Bank’s account, KRW 3,50,000, and KRW 1,60,000, and KRW 2,560,000, and KRW 2,560,000 were transferred from the Plaintiff’s Bank’s account to the Agricultural Bank’s own Bank’s account, respectively. The Plaintiff prepared and delivered a deposit sheet of KRW 24,00,000,000, from November 15, 2001 to its own Bank’s account. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457, Nov. 15, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 17407, Dec. 15, 2001>

(3) On July 10, 199, the Plaintiff’s counterpart to the transaction was suspected of having violated the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by issuing a tax invoice of KRW 596,00,000 in total value without real transaction. From October 29, 2002 to November 29, 2003, the Plaintiff was charged with having received a fine of KRW 68,00,000 in total amount of KRW 775,000 in total, compared to the amount of KRW 775,039,00 in total, and was charged with having issued a false tax invoice of KRW 596,00 in total amount of KRW 596,00 in total. From October 29, 200 to November 29, 2003, the Plaintiff was charged with having issued a false tax invoice of KRW 68,00 in real transaction without real transaction.

(4) Meanwhile, from September 3, 2000 to 2003, Ma○ Industrial Complex located in the Incheon ○○○dong (which is changed to ○○○dong on September 3, 2007), who works as the head of production management department.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1 through 7, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7-1, 7-2, Gap evidence 8, 9, 12, Eul evidence 2 and 3, part of witness ○'s testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving the existence of a taxation requirement fact in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition is the tax authority. Therefore, the burden of proving that a tax invoice is false is false, in principle, the defendant, who is the tax authority, must prove the falsity of the tax invoice that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction based on the direct evidence or all the circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction, it is necessary to prove that the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer of the lawsuit claiming that the tax invoice is not false, is also in a position that it is easy to present relevant evidence and materials.

(2) Regarding the instant case, the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○’s ○○○○○’s ○○’s 00 to 203. As to the amount of 100 books of account, the Plaintiff’s 200 books of account were officially used for production management. The amount of purchase declaration during the taxable period from 2001 to 203.0, compared to the amount of 47,097,000 won, the amount of 75,039,00 won was considerably low compared to the amount of 100 won, and the Plaintiff’s 10th 1st 205th 3th 1st 200 3th 1st 200 3th 1st 200 3th 20 1st 205 201 3th 201 3th 205 201 200 3th 205 201 201 30.

Therefore, it is legitimate that the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the premise that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice different from the fact.

3. Conclusion

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