Whether a tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that a supplier is proved to be the data of the so-called tax invoice issued without a real transaction, and that the supplier is unable to submit the supporting documents related to transactions, claiming that he/she actually purchased the tax invoice, it constitutes a false tax invoice.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Purport of Claim

Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2001, which the Defendant rendered as of July 23, 2005 to the Plaintiff, shall be revoked, respectively.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 5, 1993, the Plaintiff was issued with the following purchase tax invoices (hereinafter the instant tax invoices) from ○○○○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and was engaged in the water manufacturing business, and filed a value-added tax return for each of the above taxable periods, after deducting the input tax amount of the said tax invoices from the output tax amount, for each of the taxable periods of the value-added tax in 2001, 2002, 202, and 2003.

Purchase tax invoice (unit, won)

Date

Amount

Non-written evidence (Evidence-written evidence of deposits without passbook)

December 31, 2001

5,000,000

(1) 5,500,000 ( January 3, 2002)

August 20, 2002

12,240,000

(2) 22,00,000 ( October 15, 2002)

September 18, 2002

7,760,064

February 22, 2003

13,226,00

(3) 38,500,000 (No. 14, 2003)

March 15, 2003

11,774,027

on June 30, 2003

35,000,092

B. On July 23, 2005, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 8,106,80 for the second period of July 23, 2001, including each additional tax as value-added tax, for the second period of July 2002, the amount of KRW 919,50,500, including each additional tax as value-added tax, and the first period of the year of 2003, the amount of KRW 8,106,80 for the first period of 203.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence No. 1-2, 3, Eul evidence No. 2 and 3

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the tax invoice of this case is consistent with the facts, the disposition of this case reported differently is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

[Valued Tax]

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount in case where the whole or part of matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry items”) are not entered or entered differently from the fact: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service on August 20, 2003 to January 30, 204, after conducting a tax investigation on the so-called d d s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

(2) Meanwhile, around June 2006, the Plaintiff submitted a copy of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook with the name of ○○○○, the wife of ○○○○, ○○, from August 25, 1994 to June 10, 2005, stating the details of deposit from the said bank account to ○○○○, based on the explanation on the explanation on the explanation of the assessment data of value-added tax on the instant tax invoice, and the Plaintiff submitted the copy of the Plaintiff’s deposit passbook from October 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 1-4, Eul evidence No. 2, 4, Eul evidence No. 5-1

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving the existence of the taxation requirement fact in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing tax shall be deemed to be against the tax authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are proven, the other party cannot be deemed to be an unlawful disposition which does not meet the taxation requirement in relation to the disposition, unless the other party proves the facts in question not eligible for the application of

(2) In the case of this case, it is difficult to find that the tax invoice of this case is not prepared based on the actual transaction with the Plaintiff and ○○○○○○, in light of the following: ① the deposit agent on the deposit account slip of this case relating to the deposit account receipt submitted by the Plaintiff appears to be ○○○, a supplier of this case’s tax invoice; ② it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice in the name of the supplier after remitting the price to a third party at the Plaintiff’s request without any special reason; rather, in order to disguise the transaction with ○○, an individual entrepreneur, the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from ○○, a corporate entrepreneur, and ③ evidence on the amount deposited to ○○○, and the amount of the tax invoice of this case’s tax invoice cannot be deemed to be consistent with the tax invoice of this case.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice after the actual transaction with ○○○ and the Plaintiff was without merit.

Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.