Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice concerning the actual purchase of gold bullion

No evidence exists to deem that an act was related to the Plaintiff, such as filing an accusation against the supplier on the tax invoice on the data, but the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff-related person was not shown in the relevant data, and thus cannot be viewed as a false tax invoice.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the appellant's grounds of appeal fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

[Case Number of immediately preceding Litigation: Busan High Court Decision 2006Nu4707, Jun. 29, 2007]

1. The reasons why the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "No evidence exists on the 7th day of the judgment of the court of first instance". Next, in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the statement No. 8, the plaintiff is recognized to have been supplied by the company of first instance and paid the price in full, such as remitting the sum of KRW 1,108,038,000 to the non-party company between November 20, 2002 and March 23, 2004 in relation to the tax invoice of this case." This is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Case Number of the previous suit: Busan District Court 2006Guhap249 ( October 12, 2006)]

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are recognized by the parties to the dispute or by taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each entry of Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 6.

A. A. Around April 26, 1996, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of real estate leasing business at ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○, ○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○, a company established on and around March 31, 199; around December 12, 2001, engaged in precious metal wholesale and retail business as an included business in its intended business; and closed on May 31, 2004.

B. On October 1, 2004, between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2004, the Defendant withdrawn from 106 tax invoices of the value of supply as indicated in the following table from ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) without real transaction. The Defendant cannot deduct the input tax amount equivalent to 106 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) from value-added tax (including additional tax) for the two-year period, 48,381,890, 78,042,010, 2003, 32,840, 630, 203, 204, 2004, 204, 2004, 2004, 206, 2016, 36, 206, 206, 2016, 206, 206, 206, 206, 2016, 36, etc.

Taxation Period

Number of Chapters

Total Value of Tax Invoice

Taxation Period

Number of Chapters

Total Value of Tax Invoice

2002

20 Chapter 20

300,976,00 won

1, 2003

53 Chapter 53

545,672,00 won

2003

27 Chapter 27

238,841,00 won

1, 2004

CHAPTER 6

2,549,00 won

Total value of supply

1,108,038,00 won

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice while normally purchasing the money from the non-party company, and also remitted the money to the non-party company online.

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition that was otherwise deemed to exist should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts

In addition to the above evidence 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 6-1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 22, 27, 2-2, 3-1, 2, 6-3, 6-4, and 4, the following facts are acknowledged.

(1) (A) The head of ○○ Tax Office, through an investigation on the non-party company, filed a complaint with the investigation agency on May 28, 2004 on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by deeming that the same company issued 120 business entities with a total of 3,22.6 billion won, without real transaction, to the end of April 22, 2002 from the opening of the business to the end of 2003.

(B) In relation to the foregoing investigation, the name of the Plaintiff or the signature of the Plaintiff-related person is attached to the name of the Nonparty Company, the sales tax invoice flow of the Nonparty Company, and the financial flow level related to the sales price.

(2) (A) In the course of the investigation against the Plaintiff on the part of the Defendant, the representative director of the Plaintiff, ○○, is ○○○○, the actual director of the Plaintiff, who is in charge of the duties as the representative director on his name. From November 2002, the non-party company issued an order to the non-party company present at present and paid online the price, and then sent the price to the non-party company’s store “○○○” (hereinafter referred to as “○○”). If the price is temporarily insufficient, it was stated that the non-party company was aware of lending from ○○○.

(B) Around July 23, 2004, the Defendant accused each investigation agency of the Plaintiff on charges of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act that the Plaintiff financed funds by pretending the present sales, etc., and on September 13 of the same year, the Plaintiff evaded value-added tax of KRW 110,802,00 by receiving the instant tax invoice without real transactions and filing a return on value-added tax, and filed an accusation against each investigation agency on charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(3) (A) In the course of the investigation into the above accusation case, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s representative director is ○○○○ in the name of the Plaintiff, and he is merely the representative director in his name, but the Plaintiff paid the payment to the non-party company and actually purchased the money, and when the transportation chain company (hereinafter “○○○○”) transported the money from the non-party company to ○○○○○ in the ○○○-dong, Inc., ○○○○○○, Inc., in the name of the non-party company, the Plaintiff had brought the Plaintiff employee to ○○○, and submitted the details of the

(B) In the process of the above investigation, ○○○, who operates ○○○, both of the Plaintiff and ○○○, brought a gold from the Nonparty Company. The Plaintiff was supplied by Nonparty Company with ○○○, which transports ○○ to ○○○, and was charged by the Nonparty Company with the transport use, and thereby, stated that ○○ did not have any profit earned from the Plaintiff.

(C) In addition, in the process of the above investigation, ○○○ head of ○○○○○○○○○○○, according to a transport contract concluded between the non-party company and ○○○○○○○, the non-party company transported gold to ○○○○○○, and received KRW 1.50,00 per month transportation fee. Although the content was unaware of what it is, the content was actually carried out according to the above contract, and submitted a transport record stating the details of transportation of goods on almost every day except Sundays and holidays.

(D) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s actual head of the company stated that the investigative agency had a statement that ○○○○ borrowed gold from ○○○○, a part of a mother and child, but it had a normal purchase of gold from the Nonparty Company and paid the price.

(4) On October 11, 2004, between November 5, 2002 and March 23, 2004, the non-party company supplied the Plaintiff 84,282.87 m2 and received 1,221,04,937 m2 through online passbook-free account deposit method. The non-party company received 1,221,04,937 m2 from the same company to the non-party company by means of online account-free account deposit. The plaintiff delivered a letter of confirmation that the plaintiff received m20 m2,04,937 m2.

(5) (A) A written confirmation (No. 6-2) prepared by the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ on July 2, 2004 by the Plaintiff’s accounting staff (hereinafter “○○○○”) contains a statement that: (a) when ordering a gold, the Plaintiff placed an order under the name of the Plaintiff; (b) transferred the payment to the Nonparty Company’s account; (c) upon ordering a gold to the Nonparty Company, the Nonparty Company issued several money to the Nonparty Company by telephone; and (d) the ○○○ thought the Nonparty Company as the ○○○ branch.

(B) The document stating “all matters concerning gold” stored in the Plaintiff’s workplace computer (No. 6-3) contains the statement that if gold falls short of the amount, the amount of the gold accident by telephone will be transferred to ○○ Bank Scambling.

(6) (A) On April 25, 2002, the non-party company entered into a contract with ○○○ and the non-party company on April 25, 2002, with the content that the contract period is one year (in the absence of notice of termination, the automatic extension per year) of the contract period, and the monthly charge is 150,000 won.

(B) The terms and conditions of carriage (No. 6-4) issued at the time of the conclusion of the above contract shall state that the consignee shall not put into the carrier high-level precious metal such as cash, checks, bills, securities, and other gold bars, pumumumumum, multimond, etc. which are not in the state of any damaged goods or products, and that if so, no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed on the carrier.

(7) The receipts and disbursements of gold products submitted by the Plaintiff (No. 6-22) are written in detail on the day preceding the day from June 19, 2001 to March 23, 2004 between the two business days and the day from March 19, 2001.

(8) The ○○ District Prosecutors’ Office imposed on the Plaintiff the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the instant tax invoice on the basis of the data on November 30, 2004, including the above (2) through (7), and imposed a non-suspect on the Plaintiff on the charge of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act on May 27, 2005.

D. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing facts, the head of ○○ Tax Office filed an accusation against the non-party company, a supplier under the tax invoice of this case, with an investigative agency on charges of violating the Tax Punishment Act. However, there is no evidence to deem that the name of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff-related person was not shown in the relevant data, and that the Plaintiff was related to the act of crime. Moreover, the contents of the statement or confirmation document, etc. made by the party related to the Plaintiff during the investigation process, etc. conforms to each other as a substitute. Furthermore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the tax invoice of this case was prepared and issued without a real transaction, and there is no other evidence to deem otherwise.

(2) Therefore, the instant disposition that took place differently from the foregoing ought to be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Case Number of Pre-trial: Korean Trial 2005bu 1753 ( October 25, 2005)]

I dismiss the appeal.

1. Summary of disposition;

Since the applicant corporation started business on March 1, 2001, it received the following tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as "market tax invoices") from the corporation operating gold wholesale and retail business from around June 2001, and from ○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "non-claimed corporation") during the second to 2002 period from 204, and filed a return after deducting the input tax amount at the time of the return of the value-added tax for the relevant taxable period, and filed a return on the purchase amount at the time of the return of the corporate tax in deductible expenses.

No. 1 of the table Nos. 00

The disposition agency shall regard the issue tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact that it received it from the person suspected of receiving the data, and shall not deduct the input tax amount, and shall apply the non-taxation tax to the applicant corporation on October 14, 2004, and shall notify the second-term portion of value-added tax 4, 161,622,820 won (the second-term portion of 48,381,890 won, the first-term portion of 2003, the first-term portion of 78,042,010 won, the second-term portion of 203,840,630 won, and the first-term portion of 204, the second-term portion of 203, the second-term amount of 23,924,740 won (the amount of 6,65,460 won, the amount of 17,259,280 won) of corporate tax for 23,924,740 won (the 2002.

The applicant filed the appeal on Apr. 29, 2005 through the objection on Dec. 24, 2004.

2. Opinion of the requesting corporation and the disposition agency;

A. The claimant corporation's assertion

The applicant corporation ordered the correct amount of money to the off-site corporation and remitted online payment amount and received online tax invoices on the following day, and the disposition agency was not a false transaction in the prosecution investigation of the case suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, and it is found that the disposition agency was not a false transaction in the investigation of the case. The transaction on the tax invoice is a real transaction, but it is obvious that the actual transaction was in the process of the judgment of the applicant corporation, and the transaction on the tax invoice is not a real transaction, but it is improper to deny the total purchase transaction and dispose of this case only on the basis of a document or statement different from the actual transaction without any empirical verification or clear evidence.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

"The purchase tax invoice received by the applicant corporation was also received from the data, and the purchase tax invoice received by the applicant corporation was actually not actually purchased. Although the applicant corporation's current inventory falls short of the current stock, it appears that the delivery by credit card sales was confirmed, and it was not normal transaction. According to the confirmation of credit card user ○○○ at the time of accusation due to the violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, the credit card company's act of violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, the credit card user ○○ was seen to have used credit card without real transaction." Since the Punishment of Tax Evaders and the Value-Added Tax Act have different areas of application, the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Value-Added Tax Act are imposed on the applicant corporation's act of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and so the issue tax invoice was imposed on the applicant corporation's sales without any reasons such as the fact that the tax invoice was not a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act, but the purchase from the applicant corporation was confirmed as a disguised transaction, and thus the initial value-added tax and corporate tax imposed on March."

A. Key issue

A disposition to impose the value-added tax by regarding the issue tax invoice as a false tax invoice and deducting the input tax amount from the tax invoice, and to impose the corporate tax by applying the non-Evidence Tax

(b) Related statutes;

(2) The following input tax amounts 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 item”) 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;

(2) If a corporation (excluding such corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with a business operator as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with the business and fails to receive the evidential documents under any subparagraph of Article 116(2), the chief of the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount, except for the case subject to the proviso of the same paragraph. In this case, the additional tax shall be collected even

Article 116 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act shall receive and keep documentary evidence of expenditure. (2) In case where a corporation receives goods or services from an enterpriser as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and pays the price thereof, it shall receive and keep the documentary evidence falling under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That the same shall not apply to

1. Credit card sales slip under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (in case of transactions conducted using things similar to a credit card as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, including the documentary evidence);

2. Tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

3. Invoice under Article 121 of this Act and Article 163 of the Income Tax Act.

Article 158 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (1) The term “business operator as determined by the Presidential Decree” in Article 116 (2) of the Act means a business operator falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation");

2. A businessman under Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act: Provided, That any simplified taxable person under Article 25 of the Value-Added Tax Act located in Eup/Myeon, who is not a credit card merchant under the Specialized Credit Financial Business

3. A businessman as prescribed in Article 28 of the Income Tax Act, except for the nonresidents who have no domestic business place as prescribed in Article 120 of the said Act;

C. Facts and determination

(1) In the same location as the claimant corporation, ○○○ Company was engaged in the same business as the claimant corporation. However, in order to increase the credit card merchant limit due to the lack of credit card merchants, the claimant corporation was established as a separate corporation on March 1, 2001. Since it was established, the claimant corporation engaged in credit business by adding gold wholesale and retail business from June 2001, and the applicant corporation received the key tax invoices from the non-claim corporation during the second to the first half of 2002, and reported the input tax amount by deducting the input tax amount at the time of the pertinent taxable period from the input tax amount and reporting the purchase amount in deductible expenses. On the other hand, the disposition agency is confirmed by the review data such as a decision on the fact that the sales tax amount and the corporate tax were levied by applying the non-verification tax amount by treating the key tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact, and it is confirmed by the review data

(2) Examining the major contents of the tax investigation conducted by the head of ○○○○○○ Tax Office, the head of ○○○○○○ Tax Office in May 2004, the issue of which was issued and delivered, the representative director of the ○○○○○○○○ is merely the nominal owner, and the actual act was found to have been ○○○○○. The ○○○○○, which is a place of business, shall have one set of money and delivery at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

(3) In light of the main contents of the tax investigation into the applicant corporation, since November 2002, the applicant corporation has been selling the credit card at present. However, if the credit card users in need of supply visit the applicant corporation by advertisement or introduction, the applicant corporation and the ○○○○○○ was investigating into the fact that: (a) the applicant corporation and the ○○○○○○ had the credit card users exchange the card premium in cash at present; (b) had the credit card users exchange the card premium; and (c) had the credit card users exchange the card premium in cash; (d) reported the applicant corporation as a suspicion of violating the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act; (e) the applicant corporation received the purchase tax invoices from the non-applicant corporation and remitted it to the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○ corporation as an abnormal financial transaction business invoice; and (e) had been identified as an employee of the ○○○○○○○○ corporation purchased the credit card company's purchase of the purchase price at the Busan 200-4 point of confirmation excluding the purchase premium.

(4) At the time of the tax investigation into a claim corporation, the applicant made an explanation of the fact of the transaction of the issue tax invoices. At the time, ○○○○ does not have a company that supplies gold in bulk, making a transaction with the claim corporation, and first remitted the price ordered through the bank account and then sold it to consumers by means of receiving real goods from ○○○○○ on the following day. This transaction is a very normal transaction and the issue tax invoices received as a result of such transaction are normal, but without any empirical verification or clear basis, it is unreasonable to view the issue tax invoices as a false tax invoice based on insufficient data and statements as the fact different from the fact on the ground of insufficient documents and statements. The applicant presented a written confirmation of transaction (OOOO) prepared by the claim corporation, ○○○○○○ representative, ○○○○ corporation and the certificate of confirmation of actual transaction (OOOOOOOOO), 200, 200, 201 to 208.31.21.

(5) Examining documentary evidence presented by the agency and the claimant corporation:

According to the case of ○○○○○○○ Tax Office’s accusation of violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, ○○○○○○ Tax Office (“○○○○○○”) issued a false tax invoice by deeming that it was difficult for the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Tax Office to receive tax invoices, and that the case was dealt with as a suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.” On the other hand, ○○○○○ Tax Office (“○○○○”) issued a false tax invoice by deeming that it was difficult for the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Tax Office to receive tax invoices to receive tax invoices from the ○○○○○○○ Tax Office to receive tax invoices, and on the other hand, stated that the ○○○○○○○○ Tax Office (“○○○○”) issued a false tax invoice by deeming that it was difficult for the ○○○○○○○ Tax Office to receive tax invoices to have been recorded on the ○○○○○○ Tax Office’s issue.

4. Conclusion

This case's petition for adjudication is without merit, so it is decided as ordered by Article 81 and Article 65(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.