propriety of a disposition of tax invoice not to deduct the input tax amount received from data

It is insufficient to presume that the Plaintiff’s remittance was not accompanied by real transactions as a different tax invoice solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s remittance was made to another company within a short time by adding the money transferred to another company.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2006 and the first period of 202 value-added tax for the first period of 2002 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition;

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the same as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 금지금을 귀금속으로 가공하거나 절단하여 판매하는 영세 도ㆍ소매업자로서 ○○○쥬얼리로부터 시렞 이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 금지금을 매입하고 그 대금을 모두 ○○○쥬얼리의 은행계좌로 입금하는 등 정상적인 거래를 하였음에도 ○○○쥬얼 리가 자료상으로 고발된 업체라는 이유만으로 원고가 실물거래 없이 이 사건 세금계산서를 수취하였다고 단정하고 한 피고의 이 사건 각 부과처분은 위법하다.

B. Determination

(1) Whether a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, exists or the burden of proving the value of supply, which is the tax base, is, in principle, imposed on the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992). However, only where the facts alleged as a taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, it can be said that the other party can only prove the circumstances in which

(2) According to the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 11 with respect to the instant case, the director of the Nam-gu Tax Office received most of the purchase tax invoices from the company accused of the purchase tax invoices from March 5, 2001 to December 31, 2003, prior to ○○○○○○ Company and its representative on the ground that the sales tax invoices issued by ○○○○○○○ Family was processed, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed an accusation against the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (However, the current status of indictment was suspended due to its unknown whereabouts). If the Plaintiff deposits the transaction price under the instant tax invoice to the bank account of ○○○○ through ○○○○○○ Family and its representative on the ground that the amount deposited by other companies was combined with the amount deposited by ○○○ Company and the bank account of the ○○ system, and the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the sales tax invoices again to the bank account of the ○○○○ Company and its representative.

(3) However, comprehensively taking account of the above-mentioned evidence and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 7, Gap’s 7, Gap’s 10-1 or 36, Gap’s 12-1 or 23, and Gap’s 24-1 through 7, and Eul’s 25-1 or 4’s 7-1, 4-2, and 7-1, 7-2, and 7-2, the Plaintiff’s supply value of gold bullion supplied to the Plaintiff during the ○○○○○○○○○○○ 7,000, no other evidence was found to have been found to have been found to have been distributed to the Plaintiff at the time of ○○○○○○○ ○○ 7,00,00 gold bullion, and no other evidence was found to have been found to have been purchased at the time of ○○ 2,000,00 gold bullion.

(4) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions that deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without real transaction is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so unfair that it has different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and each disposition of this case shall be revoked as ordered.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap31126, 2008)]

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 11,85,650 on December 1, 2006 and KRW 27,84,450 on December 1, 2002 against the Plaintiff and KRW 27,84,450 on December 1, 200 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who runs wholesale and retail business in the name of ○○○ store located in ○○○○○dong, Seoul, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff is a business operator who runs wholesale and retail business in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○, Seoul.

B. The Plaintiff received two tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value of KRW 56,848,483 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) during the 2nd taxable period of the value-added tax in 2001, respectively, during the 1st taxable period of the value-added tax in 2002, 11 copies of tax invoices equivalent to the total supply value of KRW 139,573,327, and filed a return on value-added tax by deducting each of the value-added tax amounts on each of the above tax invoices (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) as the input tax amount.

C. On December 1, 2006, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction for the reason that the instant tax invoice was due to a processing transaction, and subsequently corrected and notified each of the KRW 11,85,650 for the second period of value-added tax in 2001, value-added tax 27,84,450 for the first period of 202 (hereinafter “each of the instant imposed dispositions”).

D. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 29, 2007, but was dismissed on July 23, 2007).

Facts without any dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 2-1 through 13, Gap evidence 5-1, 2-1, 1-2, 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

○○쥬얼리로부터 실제로 이 사건 세금계산서 기재와 괕이 금지금을 매입하고, 그 대금을 모두 지급한 후 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받았다. 따라서 이 사건 세금계산서를 실물 거래 없이 허위로 교부받은 사실과 다른 세금계산서임을 전제로 한 이 사건 각 부과처분은 위법하여 취소되어야 한다.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff deposited each of the corresponding amounts into the account of ○○○○○○○ on each transaction date under the instant tax invoice.

(2) According to the tax invoice of this case, the Plaintiff purchased 5 km now from ○△△ ice on two occasions in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2001, and 11 km now in the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2002. The Plaintiff’s preparation is based on the current receipt statement (Evidence 1) and each tax invoice (Evidence 1 through 7), and the statement of transaction statement (Evidence 7) (Evidence 7). The Plaintiff purchased 6 km and 8 km now from ○ ○ ○○ Co.,, Ltd. from ○○ 201 and 202 at 201.

(3) According to the Plaintiff’s present statement of receipt (Evidence 1) (Evidence 1) and each tax invoice (Evidence 1 to 109), deposit transaction statement (Evidence 10), each card sales slip (Evidence 11-1 to 36), etc., the Plaintiff sold 375 km at ○○○○○ operated on July 24, 2001 at the supply price of KRW 4,275,00 (value excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) at 1, 201 and 393,814,72 in total supply price during the second taxable period of value-added tax on the second taxable period of value-added tax on the second taxable period of value-added tax on the second taxable period of value-added tax: 192,618,034 won (Evidence 15,947, 194g) and each card sales slip (Evidence 11-1 to 36).

(4) The head of ○○ Tax Office received most of the purchase tax invoices from an enterprise on the data basis, from March 5, 2001 to December 31, 2003. The sales tax invoices issued by ○○○○ Tax Office filed a complaint against ○○○○○ on the grounds that the sales tax invoices issued by ○○○○○ Tax Office were those suspected of violating the Tax Act, but the indictment was suspended due to the unknown whereabouts of ○○○○○○○.

(5) As a result of investigating ○○○ tax office’s ○○○○ ice on suspicion of data, the sales tax invoice amounting to 81.3% of the sales amount was revealed to have been issued on the ○○ ○○ 21 companies, and most of the above sales offices were identified as a company with sufficient criminal records, such as data. Of the files of the accusation, the company was subject to a disposition of suspicion from the ○ ○ ○ ○○ Office on October 27, 2005.

(6) The representative director of ○○ System Co., Ltd. was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 years and a fine of 25 billion won on August 24, 2007 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (○○ District Court 2007○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○), and the appeal filed against this and dismissed (○○ High Court 2007○○○○○○).

(7) If the Plaintiff deposited the transaction price under the instant tax invoice into the account of ○○○○○○, the Plaintiff deposited the transaction price into the account of ○○○○ Company and ○○ System Company, which was accused of as data within one hour after combining the amount deposited by other companies.

There is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1 through 13, Gap evidence 6-1 through 7, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 9-1 through 109, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11-1 through 36, Gap evidence 12-1 through 24, Eul evidence 23-1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is in a position that it is easy to present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer disputing illegality of the defendant disposition, by asserting that the tax invoice is not false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) In light of the fact that most of ○○○ Party and its sales offices, as seen earlier, proved that the tax invoice of this case was false. Therefore, the Plaintiff should prove that the tax invoice of this case was supplied from ○○○ Party and its sales offices, and in general, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff deposited the price on the tax invoice of this case with ○○ Party 2’s account (Evidence 4-1 to 13 of Evidence No. 7, No. 1 to 2, No. 16-1 of evidence No. 2 of this case’s sales of gold bullion No. 2 of this case’s sales of gold bullion No. 1 to 41 of evidence No. 2 of this case’s sales of gold bullion No. 5 of this case’s ○○ Party 1, No. 2 of this case’s sales of gold bullion No. 2 of this case’s purchase without delivery of the tax invoice No. 1 to No. 5 of this case’s 6-1 of evidence No. 3 of this case’s. 1 to No. 16-1 of this case’s sales of this case’s sales of this case’

Therefore, each disposition of this case, which reported the tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice without real transaction, is lawful.

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.