Whether it is a false tax invoice without real transactions

It is reasonable to apply 10 years to the exclusion period for taxation on the processed purchase tax invoice because it falls under fraudulent or other unlawful acts, and there is no evidence to prove the real transaction, so taxation is legitimate.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of each of the tax imposed on the plaintiff 2,293,710 won for the corporate tax of 2002, the corporate tax of 2003, the corporate tax of 12,926,450 won for the corporate tax of 2003, and the corporate tax of 2,353,510 won for the second period of 2003, which was June 10, 2005, the value-added tax of 1,796,280 won for the second period of 203, the value-added tax of 400,40 won for the second period of 197, which was June 11, 2005, the value-added tax of 1,854,790 won for the second period of 202, and the value-added tax of 1,773, and 290 won for the first period of 203, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 3,080,000 on the mid-term rental from ○○ Heavy Period in 1997, and reported the value-added tax on the second-term rental period in 1997. The Plaintiff Company received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 10,735,000 on the purchase tax invoice as the input tax amount, and received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 10,735,000 on the total supply value from ○ Steel Industries in 2002, and received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 39,131,00 on the total supply value of KRW 39,131,00 on the total supply value, KRW 9 on the second-term purchase tax invoice of KRW 11,790,00 on the total supply value from ○○ Industries, KRW 25,890,000 on the total supply value of KRW 20 on the said tax invoice of KRW 20 on each of the said tax invoice of KRW 20 on the said tax invoice.

B.However, the defendant notified from the head of ○○ Tax Office that the tax invoice for the above ○○ Heavy was confirmed as processed data, each of the above ○ Steel industry, ○ Industries, and ○○tech was confirmed as each of the above processed data by the head of ○○ Tax Office, and that the plaintiff received each of the above tax invoice without actual transactions and denied the plaintiff's deduction of the input tax amount for the second period of February 1997, 200, 1,202, 1,203, 203, 202, 1, 2003, 202, 207, 2002, 207, 200, 200, 293, 205, 36, 201, 205, 306, 205, 205, 306, 204, 207, 2005, 201.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 17, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each disposition of the instant case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 1997

Since the Plaintiff purchased the tax invoice after actually paying 3,080,000 won for the mid-term rental fee from the mid-term rental fee to the mid-term rental fee, it is unlawful for the Defendant to consider it as a processing transaction and impose the value-added tax. In addition, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period in 2005 was a disposition for which 5 years have elapsed from the national tax exclusion period.

(2) As to each other’s disposition of this case

The Plaintiff purchased a tax invoice after actually being supplied with goods from the ○ Steel Industry, ○○ Industries, and ○○○○○○○○ Industries through this or Kim○○○○, and paying the purchase price. Therefore, the Defendant’s deeming it as a processing transaction and imposing corporate tax and value-added tax is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion on the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 1997

First, in order to determine whether the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 3,080,000 as a mid-term rental fee after renting the middle-term period from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a representative of ○○○○○○○○○○○, on the data, notified the head of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ issued to the Plaintiff, of the processing tax invoices. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The transaction between ○○○○○

Next, we examine whether the Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of 197 against the Plaintiff was a disposition for which the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes has expired. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff filed a false purchase tax invoice with the Plaintiff at ○○ mid-term, and deducted it from the output for the second period of 197. This constitutes “Fraud or other unlawful act under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which constitutes a case where a national tax is evaded or refunded.” In such a case, the exclusion period for taxation for the ten-year period of 10 years is applicable, and therefore

(2) Determination as to the remainder of each disposition of this case

(A) In full view of the entire purport of the instant pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the statement Nos. 1 to 6,7 of the evidence No. 1 to 6,000.

① On February 3, 2002, the ○○○○○○○ 501-2, a business operator registered as a type of ethyl luxing, steel structure manufacturing and wholesale retail, but closed on July 18, 2003. The ○○ Industries is a business operator registered as a type of steel structure, steel product manufacturing and retail business in Gwangju ○○○ ○○ 620-12 on April 20, 2003, and was closed on April 28, 2004. The ○○○○○○ 501-2 on December 10, 200, and was a business operator registered as a type of automobile parts manufacturing and press retail business and closed on July 30, 2003.

② ○○○, a representative of the ○ Steel Industry, is an ○○○○, and ○○, a representative of the ○○ Industries, is an ○○○’s wife, and ○○○, a representative of the ○○ Steel Industry, is an ○○○.

③ Gwangju ○○○○○○○ 501-2 registered as the location of the place of business of the ○○ Steel Industry, which is the owner, leased the above land to ○○○○○○○, a stock company, the former owner of the above land, and used by the said company. There was no lease in the ○ Steel Industry. Moreover, Gwangju ○○ ○ 620-12, registered as the location of the ○○○○ ○○ ○ ○○ , the owner of the above land, did not have leased the above land to the ○○ industry.

④ As a manufacturer of automobile parts, ○○○○, a manufacturer of automobile parts, is not related to the Plaintiff’s business type, and is not related to the Plaintiff’s business type, and ○○○, an entrepreneur of ○○○tech, did not issue a tax invoice to the Plaintiff, and Nonparty ○○ issued and issued the said tax invoice for the first half of 203 to the Plaintiff

⑤ On April 19, 2005, the director of the ○○○ Tax Office issued each of the above tax invoices to the Plaintiff by ○○ Steel Industry, ○○ Industry, and ○○○○tech, which did not trade in real, confirmed the above three companies as data, and accused Nonparty ○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office on April 19, 2005, and notified the Defendant of the above facts around that time.

⑥ On February 2, 2005, the Plaintiff confirmed and notified the Defendant that there was no fact of transaction between ○ Industry and 11,790,000 won in the second quarter of 2003.

(B) According to the above facts, the ○ Steel Industry and the ○○ Industries do not exist in their place of business, and they do not seem to have been a manufacturer of goods required for the work performed by the Plaintiff. The ○ Steel Industry is limited to Feb. 2002, 200, and the ○○ Industries is limited to all the companies registered as business on Apr. 2003 and continued to exist one year. The ○○ Industries is the same as the ○○○○○○, and all the representatives are the same as the ○○○○○, and the ○○, all of which are the same as the ○○○○, the ○○○○, and the ○○ Industries was notified in writing to the Defendant in that they did not have transacted with the ○○ Industries and the ○○ Industries. Accordingly, in light of these facts, each purchase tax invoice purchased and reported by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is recognized to have been issued falsely, and there is no reason to believe that the Plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient to recognize the above facts.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, each of the dispositions in this case, which the Defendant denied input tax deduction and deductible expenses related to corporate tax, on the ground that each of the purchase tax invoices in this case is processed data, and imposed the corresponding value-added tax and corporate tax, is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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