Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap16335 (2008.04)

National High Court Decision 2005No2508 (206.02)

Whether or not false tax invoices have been received at the time of purchase

The fact that there is a presumption that the investigation is a false tax invoice on the certificate of the completion of investigation and there is no specific evidence to support the falsity, and the fact that the relevant transaction partner is suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is insufficient to regard it as a false tax invoice.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

The defendant designated the plaintiff on March 17, 2005 as the person liable for secondary tax payment of Daesung precious metal corporation.

The imposition of KRW 8,048,210 of the corporate tax for the business year 202, the imposition of KRW 36,853,490 of the first year value-added tax for the business year 2002, the imposition of KRW 34,567,380 of the second year value-added tax for the business year 2002, and the imposition of KRW 196,38,490 of the value-added tax for the year 203, shall be revoked.

【Purpose of Appeal】

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments to Chapter 5, Chapter 17, of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Accordingly, the defendant does not simply impose tax on the above transaction as a transaction with data, but it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice submitted by the defendant does not correspond to the loss and purchase price of the above transaction because the plaintiff failed to present objective evidence on the ground that it could recognize the real nature of the transaction in question, and therefore, it should be viewed as a legitimate disposition identical to the above recognized ○○ ○○ △ and ○○ ○○ ○ ○. However, since the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the tax disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement, the tax invoice reported by the taxpayer is proved to the extent that it is reasonable by the tax authority to prove that the tax invoice was prepared in falsity without real transaction, and there is a need to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present books and evidence, etc. regarding the fact that the cost was actually paid, in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as the case where it is proved to the extent that the tax invoice reported by the taxpayer was prepared in a fraudulent manner. Thus, even if all evidence submitted by the defendant, this part of the tax invoice is not acceptable.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified to the extent that it seeks revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 34,567,380 for the second year value-added tax of KRW 196,38,490 for the business year of 2002, the part exceeding KRW 1,316,470 for the imposition of KRW 36,853,490 for the first year value-added tax of KRW 36,48,210 for the business year of 2002, and the part exceeding KRW 13,481,180 for the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 34,567,380 for the second year of 202, and all of the imposition of value-added tax for the second year of value-added tax of KRW 196,38,490 for the first year of 203.