Whether a processing tax invoice received from a material wholesaler (gold wholesaler) is actually traded;

Considering the overall contents of the data investigation report, the fact that the accused data is subject to the suspension of indictment or the suspension of reference, and there are no other evidentiary materials for taxation, it is insufficient to recognize the issue as a processing tax invoice that does not accompany real transactions, and there is no other evidentiary materials to acknowledge otherwise.

Article 17 (Non-Deduction of Purchasing Tax Amount) (2) of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 9,785,00 for the first period of 2003 against the Plaintiff on 17, 2006 shall be revoked.

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

As set forth in the text.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. From 00.01.01. to ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff operated a manufacturing business of medical appliances (medical appliances) with the trade name (the business registration number: ○○-○-○-○○○○○○○○○). On 2001, the Plaintiff moved the place of business to ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○ and ○○○○○ on 17. 2007.

B. On 2003. 25. 2003, the Plaintiff reported each input tax amount of 7 tax invoices in the amount of KRW 65,000,491 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) from ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Company”) by deducting each of the input tax amount of 65,000,491 from the output tax amount as follows.

No.

Classification

Date

Items

Value of supply (cost)

1

1, 2003

oly 13, 2003

now,

10,000,006

2

̋

1, 2003.02

̋

10,000,108

3

̋

203.03.10

̋

9,000,038

4

̋

03.03.26

̋

6,000,052

5

̋

03.31

̋

15,000,115

6

̋

03.04.07

̋

7,000,065

7

̋

03.04.18

̋

8,000,107

Total

65,000,491

C. Meanwhile, around December 2005, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office filed a complaint with the non-party company as data on the ground that “the non-party company issued a processed tax invoice for a period from around 2001 to 2003 and transferred the settlement amount to a bank by a third party other than the recipient of the tax invoice for a disguised transaction in order to disguised the true transaction while issuing the processed tax invoice for a period from 200 to 2003,” and notified the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the customer who received each tax invoice of taxation

D. On May 17, 2006, the Defendant: (a) viewed the instant tax invoice as a processing tax invoice for which no real transaction was conducted; and (b) deducted the input tax amount from the input tax amount; and (c) imposed KRW 9,785,000 on the Plaintiff for the first quarter of 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”).

E. On December 11, 2006, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 11, 2006, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on December 29, 2007.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 15, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

Since the Plaintiff purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from the non-party company and paid the price in cash, the instant tax invoice is a normal transaction. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without real transaction, is unlawful.

(2) Defendant

In light of the fact that ○○○○ Korea Co., Ltd., the main purchase-price of Nonparty Co., Ltd., the main purchase-price of Nonparty Co., Ltd., filed a complaint on the whole data and received a final judgment of conviction, and that ○○○○ was merely a representative director in the name of Nonparty Co., Ltd., and did not directly participate in the management of the Nonparty Co., Ltd., and that there was a suspicion of violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act by engaging in the act of tining in the name of Nonparty Co.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Tax Invoice Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006)

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a person liable for tax payment supplies goods or services, he/she shall issue an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply at the time prescribed in Article 9 (where Presidential Decree prescribes otherwise, referring to the time prescribed otherwise), as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That the delivery time may vary in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree:

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

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

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, except in such case as prescribed by

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Although the Plaintiff submitted a statement of transaction, deposit sheet, ledger of raw materials brought into Korea on each date), the date of production, etc. according to the instant transaction, the Plaintiff did not submit financial data that withdrawn cash that was paid as the price of the instant transaction.

(2) When notifying the Defendant of the taxation data (Evidence No. 3), the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ (the director of the regional tax office) attached 'the sum of KRW 76,450,000 on March 27, 2003 and KRW 90,911,000 on April 14, 2001, the sum of KRW 14,461,000 on the non-party company's account transfer to the non-party company's company's non-party company's 'the particulars that the non-party made a deposit without a passbook'. However, this was the fact that the '○○○○-○-○-○○○○○○' (the business registration number ○○-○○) operated by the plaintiff'

(3) At the time of the request for examination, the Defendant asserted that the tax invoice of this case was processed, “the Plaintiff, as if ○○○ had deposited the Plaintiff’s transaction price, made an illegal transaction by means of fictitious payment.” The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, on March 27, 2003, remitted KRW 76,450,000 to the non-party company in the name of the Plaintiff at ○○○○○ branch of ○○ Bank, and around April 13:27, 2003, when recognizing that “the fact of remitting KRW 14,461,00 by the same method at ○○○○ branch of ○○ Bank,” it was confirmed that the tax invoice of this case was processed as one of the reasons why it was processed, but it was not related to the Plaintiff.

(4) On the other hand, around October 203, 2005, the director of the ○○ Regional Office of Public Prosecutor's Office accused the director of the ○○○ Regional Office of Public Prosecutor's Office as a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act that "the director of the ○○ Office issued the processed sales tax invoice under the name of the non-party company and the non-party company for the period from October 02, 2003 to July 08, 2003, the non-party company and the non-party company's representative director, the ○○○○ and the actual operator of the non-party company, from July 31, 2003 to December 31, 2003."

(5) In the prosecution investigation, on October 21, 2001, on the ground that all transactions from around December 31, 2003 to around December 31, 2003 were normal transactions, and the 113 companies involved asserted that all of the 113 companies were normal transactions. On October 23, 2007, the ○○ District Prosecutors’ Office prepared a confirmation statement that the Plaintiff actually engaged in the instant transactions on the ground that the 113 companies concerned denied suspicion while submitting relevant data, and all of the target companies argued that the ○○○○ Office denied suspicion, and that all of the target companies argued that it is difficult to specify the facts of the instant transaction without examining whether the ○○○○ was an escape abroad, and that it is difficult to identify the facts of the instant crime.

Facts having no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 1 and 2's evidence 1 to 3, Gap's evidence 3, Gap's evidence 6 through 19, Eul's evidence 3, 4, Eul's evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul's evidence 7 through 9, Eul's evidence 10-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove the falsity of the tax invoice of this case based on direct evidence or all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) Although there are circumstances in the instant case that the Plaintiff did not submit the financial data withdrawn from cash that the Plaintiff paid as the instant transaction price, as shown in the facts of recognition. However, the Plaintiff submitted the statement of transaction, deposit sheet and delivery date, inspection date, inspector, quantity of storage, content, weight, ingredients, etc. according to the instant transaction; ② financial transaction details attached to the notice of taxation data, which served as the basis for the instant disposition, are erroneous or proved unrelated to the Plaintiff; ③ financial transaction details attached to the notice of taxation data are alleged to be a real transaction in the prosecutor’s investigation following the accusation by the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office; ③ it was found that the parties to the transaction with the Nonparty company asserted that all of the transaction parties to the transaction with the Plaintiff were a real transaction; ③ the disposition of suspending indictment or suspending the relevant transaction was issued, without stating that the relevant tax invoice related to the transaction was a processed tax invoice. In full view of the circumstances cited by the Defendant, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5-1 through 3, 7 through 9, 11 through 1, 13, 14-1, and 15-1.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

* Note *

1) The delivery date, inspection date, inspector, storage quantity, content, weight, ingredients, etc. are written in detail in the raw materials shipping ledger.

* Note *

2) From October 13, 2004, ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong, to October 13, 2004, ○○○ engaged in retail business, such as a trade name, such as ○○-dong ○○, ○○-dong ○○○.

* Note *

(iii)

* Note *

4) Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting that the instant transaction was included in those transactions.