Whether the gold bullion tax invoice is a tax invoice for processing that does not trade in real

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the purchase tax invoice was prepared on the basis of the processing transaction, such as the fact that the tax invoice was purchased and sold to a normal business entity.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) of the Income Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,701,020 for the second half-year of 2003 against the Plaintiff on October 4, 2004 and global income tax of KRW 3,829,520 for the second half-year of 203 shall be revoked.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into four parts, and three parts shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

The judgment of Paragraph 1 A and the defendant on October 4, 2004 each revoked the imposition disposition of Value-Added Tax 4,664,010 won for the second period of 202 against the plaintiff on October 4, 2004 and global income tax 10,344,620 won for the year 202.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is running the precious metal wholesale business from 000-00 to 00,000 ○○○○-dong 00 to ○○○-dong.

B. The Plaintiff received three copies of the purchase tax invoice (i.e., the value of supply 9,090,798 won on December 30, 2002, the value of supply 21,218,121 won on December 31, 2002, and the purchase tax invoice (i.e., the value of supply 13,332,720 won on July 29, 2003) from the non-party ○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party ○○○”) and reported each tax credit as the input tax return for the pertinent period, and then received each tax credit. The tax credit was included in the necessary expenses at the global income tax return for the year 2002 and for the year 203.

C. The Defendant received from the head of ○○○ Tax Office having jurisdiction over the location of the business place of the non-party company the notice of taxation data that the non-party company issues only a tax invoice without real transactions. Each of the instant tax invoices issued by the non-party company is deemed as a non-real transaction-free processing tax invoice, and thus, deducted the amount equivalent to the input tax amount stated in each of the instant tax invoices from the value-added tax amount by each taxable period. Moreover, on October 4, 2004, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on October 4, 2002 as value-added tax 4,664,017 won for the second period of 202, value-added tax for 203, value-added tax 1,701,029 won for the second period of 203, value-added tax 10,344,625 won for the second period of 202, and 3,829,521 won for the global income tax for the year 200

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case, filed an objection on January 4, 2005. However, on March 21, 2005, he was dismissed by the Director of the Regional Tax Office of ○○ on March 21, 2005, and filed a national tax trial on June 21, 2005. However, on February 6, 2006, he was dismissed by the National Tax Tribunal.

(Evidence) Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 5-1 through 4, Evidence No. 1-1 to 14-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as indicated in each of the instant tax invoices, was actually supplied with gold bullion from the non-party company and paid the price in full. As such, each of the instant tax invoices was based on normal trade, but it was unlawful for the Defendant to deny it and impose the instant tax disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination on the legality of the instant disposition

(i) As to each disposition relating to the purchase tax invoice dated December 30, 2002 and December 31, 2002

Examining the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 9-1 through 5, Eul evidence 14-1 through 2, the whole amount of the pleadings appears to have been 00 won for each of the above 00 won which the plaintiff purchased from the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the company's purchase, 970 won for the above 1,63.34g and 1,69g for the gold bullion that the plaintiff purchased from the above 0-10 won for the non-party company's purchase, 90 won for each of the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the non-party company's purchase, 10,000 won for the above 0-10 won for the above 0-10 won for the above passbook.

Thus, the defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of October 4, 2004 and 10,344,620 won for the second term of 202 and global income tax for the second term of 2002 is all lawful.

D. As to each disposition related to purchase tax invoice dated 29, 2003

The defendant asserts that the purchase tax invoice of July 29, 2003 is false, in light of the fact that the non-party company filed an accusation on the data and the ○○○○, the representative director of the company, was convicted and finalized, whether or not the plaintiff actually purchased the money on the above date, and whether or not sold the money so purchased.

However, considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 3 through Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 10, and Eul evidence 6-1 through 3, ○○○, the representative director of the non-party company, can only be found to have been convicted of evading value-added tax by means of receiving false purchase tax invoices from other enterprisers on July 29, 2003, different from the point of time of issuing the above purchase tax invoices, and there is no evidence to prove that the above ○○○○ was punished or subject to tax investigation on the suspicion that he issued false sales tax invoices to the plaintiff or other enterprisers. Rather, it is difficult to find that the above ○○○○ purchased the above subsequent gold bullion (referring to those which are traded as non-party 1) without issuing the tax invoices in the prosecutor’s investigation process, and it is difficult to find out that the plaintiff purchased a large quantity of gold bullion 1 through 70, which are non-party 60, and thus, it can be viewed that the plaintiff purchased them from the above 70, supra.

Therefore, the defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of October 4, 2003 and global income tax for the second term of 2003 to the plaintiff on October 4, 2004 is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified within the scope of seeking revocation of each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,701,020 for the second quarter of 2003 and global income tax of KRW 3,829,520 for the second quarter of 203. The remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.