propriety of any disposition imposed on the basis of a false tax invoice

It is nothing more than referring to the plaintiff in the process of the processing sales office by the customer's accounting staff, and there is no specific basis for it. It is insufficient to recognize that the employee is a false tax invoice because he did not work at the time of issuing the tax invoice

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 63,608,310 of value-added tax for the second period of February 10, 2007 against the Plaintiff on February 10, 2007 and KRW 85,547,40 of corporate tax for the business year of 203 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-1, 4-11, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacture, wholesale and retail business, etc. of gold, received 250,533,290 won (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) in total from the purchase tax invoices of 250,53,290 won (hereinafter “the instant tax invoices”) during the second taxable period of 2003, deducted the input tax amount under each of the said tax invoices at the time of the return of value added tax for the second taxable period of 203, and included the supply value under each of the said tax invoices as deductible expenses at the time of the return of corporate tax for the business year of 2003.

B. The Defendant, on the ground that each of the tax invoices received by the Plaintiff from ○san is a tax invoice for processing without real transactions, deducts input tax amounts on each of the tax invoices of this case, set the value-added tax and corporate tax by adding the value of supply to deductible expenses, and notified the Plaintiff on February 10, 2007, of KRW 63,608,310 and corporate tax of KRW 85,547,400 for the second period of value-added tax of 2003 and corporate tax of KRW 85,547,40 for 203 (hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”).

C. On March 16, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on March 16, 2007, but was dismissed on May 21, 2007.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the tax invoices of this case was prepared according to the actual transaction. The plaintiff paid the price by means of passbook payments or divesing, while purchasing the gold from ○00, and the evidence was also preserved. However, each of the tax invoices of this case under the premise that all of the transaction in this case is a processing transaction is illegal, and is in violation of the taxation principle based on the premise that

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

Article 116 (Receipt and Safekeeping of Documentary Evidence of Expenditures)

C. Determination

In general, the defendant, who is the tax authority, should prove that the burden of proof for the facts of taxation is, in principle, against the tax authority, and that the tax invoice is false not accompanied by the real transaction.

In light of the fact that the Defendant actually established and operated ○san Funds, and the above ○○○ is the data processor, and the above ○○○○ is the data processor, which received the processed tax invoice while establishing and operating a number of gold bullion companies in the name of a relative, and based on this, it was found guilty in the relevant criminal case as it was the data that left the processed tax invoice to the gold bullion wholesalers and retailers. The ○○○○○ was the accounting officer of the ○○○ and the Hong Shipbuilding stated the details of the receipt and issuance of the processed tax invoice, and the Plaintiff also stated that the ○○○ was the processed sales office of the ○○○○.

In light of the following facts, ○○○○○○○○ 5, etc., who operated the tax invoice No. 4, ○○○ 5-1, 2, 6-2, 7, and 8-1 through 5, as alleged by the Defendant, ○○ 00, as the company actually established and operated ○○ 00, issued the processed tax invoice only upon receiving a request from the customer while operating the tax invoice. ○○ 8,000, 000, 000, 0000, 000, 0000, 000,0000, 000,0000, 000,0000, 000,0000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

Therefore, each of the instant dispositions, based on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices is false, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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