Appellate Court 2015west0896 ( October 31, 2015)

The imposition of value-added tax by false tax invoice is legitimate.

Recognizing that a tax invoice was issued in the name of an enterprise that has no transactional relationship since the receipt of the tax invoice, the tax invoice in this case constitutes a false tax invoice.

2015Guhap6387 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

JAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

December 11, 2015

January 22, 2016

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

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 0,00,00 for the second term of November 1, 2014, value-added tax of KRW 0,00,00 for the second term of 201, value-added tax of KRW 0,00,00 for the first term of 201, KRW 0,000 for the second term of 201, KRW 0,000 for the first term of 2012, and KRW 0,000 for the second term of 20,000 for the second term of 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 25, 2010 to June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff was an entrepreneur operating a restaurant. The Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) from ○○ chain Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ chain”) and deducted the relevant input tax amount by each taxable period, and filed a return and payment of value-added tax from 20,010 to 20,012.

B. On November 1, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued without a real transaction, and subsequently notified the Plaintiff of KRW 0,000,000 for the second period of value-added tax for the year 2010, value-added tax for the first period of year 201, KRW 0,000,000 for the second period of year 201, KRW 0,000 for the second period of year 201, and KRW 0,000 for the first period of year 20,000 for the second period of year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

From July 2010 to September 2012, the Plaintiff received alcoholic beverages from ○○ chain. However, the Z, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, was in charge of the supply of alcoholic beverages to the Plaintiff. As to the alcoholic beverages supplied at the time, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice under the name of △△ and ○○ chain with respect to the alcoholic beverages supplied at the time, and received the belief that two companies are the same company. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is not different from the facts, but is not erroneous in the Plaintiff’s failure to know it even if the instant tax invoice is different from the facts.

B. Determination

In addition to the whole purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 8, the following facts can be acknowledged: ① the tax invoice of this case issued by ○○ Chain to the plaintiff (the tax invoice of this case issued by 2011 and 2012) stating that the items are "non- State alcoholic beverages" or "food Miscellaneous" (the tax invoice issued by the plaintiff that supplied alcoholic beverages to the plaintiff, unlike this, specifically states the items of alcoholic beverages); ② the plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages; and the ZZ which issued the tax invoice and issued the tax invoice to the plaintiff was an employee of △△△ from 2004 to 2012 (the price for alcoholic beverages was paid to the plaintiff) (the plaintiff paid to the ZZ), ③ the fact that ○○ chain only purchased only the alcoholic beverages for domestic use and large store use from the manufacturer and importer of alcoholic beverages, and ④ the fact that the ○○ chain and △ Kong are separate corporations.

According to the above facts, ○○ chain was unable to sell alcoholic beverages to a restaurant, and the tax invoice of this case also stated that the item is non-powered or food miscellaneous, so it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was actually supplied alcoholic beverages from ○○ Chain, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it ( even if the Plaintiff asserted, the Plaintiff paid the liquor to the Z, which is an employee of the ZZ, and received alcoholic beverages and tax invoices from the Z).

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant tax invoice was issued under the name of ○○ Chain, after hearing the explanation that the Z is an employee of the Z, and that the Z is identical with the Z, which is an employee of the Z, and then, the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was issued the tax invoice under the name of ○ Chain, which does not have any transactional relation at the time of receiving the instant tax invoice.

Therefore, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and the plaintiff was aware of the fact of false name at the time of receiving it, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that is written on a different premise is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.