세금계산서의 공급자가 사실과 다른 세금계산서인지 여부[국패]
Whether a supplier of a tax invoice is a false tax invoice
In view of the fact that the supplier of gold bullion transactions has paid the price at present, it is unreasonable to impose a disposition on the supplier of gold bullion transaction by deeming it as a false tax invoice.
Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Details of the imposition;
가. 원고는 2003. 10.경부터 ○○시 ○○○구 ○○동에 있는 ○○○ 1층에서 ○○○○라는 상호로 준보석업을 영위하는 사업자인바(사업자등록번호 : ○○○-○○-○○○○○) 2003년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 주식회사 ○○○(이하 ＇소외 회사＇라 한다)로부터 수취한 2003. 10. 16.자, 2003. 12. 16.자 공급가액 합계 14,000,000원 상당인 지금(地金) 등(지금 · 지은 · 백금)의 매입세금계산서 2장, 2004년 제1기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 소외 회사로부터 수취한 2004. 1 30.자, 2004. 3. 17.자, 2004. 4. 2.자, 2004. 4. 29.자, 2004. 6. 29.자 공급가액 합계 18,181,000원 상당인 매입세금계산서 5장, 2004년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 소외 회사로부터 수취한 2004. 7. 14.자, 2004. 8. 10.자, 2004. 9. 4.자, 2004. 9. 18.자 공급가액 합계 15,772,000원 상당인 매입세금계산서 4장(이하 위 각 세금계산서를 ＇이 사건 세금계산서＇라 하고, 위 각 거래를 ＇이 사건 거래＇라 한다)에 대한 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하여 신고하였다.
B. Meanwhile, the head of ○○○ Tax Office, as a result of conducting a tax investigation on the non-party company, filed a complaint with the ○ Police Station on December 29, 2004 on the charge that the non-party company received or issued false tax invoices for the total amount of KRW 37.75 billion and the total purchase amount of KRW 37.631 billion during the taxable period from the first to the first period of 2004, on the grounds that he received or issued false tax invoices without real transactions, and notified the non-party company of the instant tax invoice to the Defendant on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.
다. 피고는 ○○세무서장의 통보에 따라 2005. 6. 1. 이 사건 세금계산서를 실물거래 없는 가공세금계산서로 인정하여 원고에 대하여 2003년 제2기분 부가가치세 2,040,350원, 2004년 제1기분 부가가치세 2,550,430원, 2004년 제2기분 부가가치세 2,125,430원을 경정 · 고지하였다(이하 ＇이 사건 부과처분＇이라 한다).
D. On July 13, 2006, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case, requested the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on July 13, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the disposition of this case on September 21, 2006.
(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 3, 5, 7 through 11, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.
A. The parties' assertion
(i)the plaintiff
Since the Plaintiff purchased the instant tax invoice from the non-party company at present corresponding to the instant tax invoice and paid the price in full, the instant tax invoice is a normal transaction. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the instant tax invoice on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without a real transaction is unlawful.
(2)Defendant
원고는 주식회사 ○○○(이하 ＇○○○＇라 한다) 본사와 거래를 한 것이어서 공급자인 ○○○ 본사로부터 세금계산서를 발급받아야 함에도 거래하지도 않는 소외 회사로부터 이 사건 세금계산서를 발급받았으므로, 이 사건 세금계산서의 공급자 기재는 사실과 다르고, 또한 이 사건 세금계산서는 실물거래를 동반하지 아니한 것으로 허위이므로, 이 사건 부과처분은 적법하다.
(b) Related statutes;
○ Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
(1) The amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “amount of tax payable”) shall be the amount calculated by deducting the tax amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “amount of tax for purchase”) from the amount of tax for the goods and services supplied by him: Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the amount of tax for purchase, the amount of tax payable shall be the amount of tax for refund (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 a case where the tax invoice under Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or where the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “matters to be entered”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such a case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;
C. Determination
As the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, the defendant should prove that the tax invoice of this case is not accompanied by the real transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 197). First, considering that the supplier of this case was not a supplier of this case, the defendant's tax invoice No. 6-1 through 3, 5, 7, and 10-1, 12, and 3, the defendant's tax invoice No. 1 and 10-2, and the defendant's tax invoice No. 2 cannot be acknowledged as being purchased based on the circumstance that the non-party No. 5's tax invoice No. 2 did not present, and the non-party No. 3's tax invoice No.
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.