Whether the actual transaction is recognized where the transaction amount with the customer is confirmed by the financial account;

It is difficult to conclude that a false transaction is conducted unless it is proven that there is additional proof that the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act was accused of the violation, but the person received a non-prosecution disposition, and the amount received from the seller, was paid to the seller.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. The Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff on April 1, 2006 at KRW 7,679,040 and KRW 16,270,430 for the second term of 204 and the first term value-added tax for the year 2005 at least.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of each disposition of this case;

A. From June 4, 2004, the Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of the original ○○○○○-dong 00-00 ○○○○-dong 00-dong 000.

B. As a result of conducting a tracking investigation against the Plaintiff, the Defendant recognized that there was no real transaction of KRW 1,050,412,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice issued or received by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant case”) in the aggregate of the supply values issued by the Plaintiff to 22 enterprises including ○○ unemployment, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “sales Center”) during the second and first taxable periods of 2004 and 2005, and seven enterprises including ○○, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Purchase”). At the time of processing transaction, the Defendant recognized that there was no real transaction of KRW 1,050,412,00 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice issued or received by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant transaction”). At the time, the Defendant’s transaction amount by each customer of the Plaintiff as a result of the instant processing transaction is as follows:

【Transaction Amount by Individual】

Personal Information of the Purchase Agency

Division of the taxable period

Transaction Amount (,000 won)

Trade Name

Type of Business

○ ○TX

Manufacture/Class 3

1, 2005

150,000

(m)○○

Manufacture/Class 3

204 Second Period

233,488

○ ○ Textiles

Wholesale/Trade

204 Second Period

141,388

( principal)○○○○○

Wholesale /Sgd.

204 Second Period

52,271

○○○○○ (main)

Wholesale /Sgd.

204 Second Period

134,500

( principal)○○○○○○

Manufacture/Officials

204 Second Period

80,001

○ ○ Trade

Wholesale/Trade

1, 2005

184,329

【Trade Amount by Sales Place】

Personal Information of the seller

Sector of Taxation

Transaction Amount (,000 won)

Trade Name

Type of Business

○ Industry

Article /Sgd./Sgd./

204 Second Period

30,015

○ ○ Hephere

Manufacture/Class 3

204 Second Period

10,010

○ ○ Ralar

Article /Sgd./Sgd./

204 Second Period

30,019

1, 2005

35,033

○ Industry

Manufacture/Belgium

204 Second Period

17,000

○ Industry

Manufacture/cell vertical components

204 Second Period

3,740

1, 2005

35,031

○ Industry

Manufacture/Belgium

204 Second Period

50,016

1, 2005

50,146

○○ Printing Industry Company

Manufacture/observer printing

204 Second Period

15,010

○○ Tech

Wholesale/won Group

204 Second Period

8,000

(m)○○ General Commercial

garment subsidiary materials

204 Second Period

24,006

○○ Unemployment

Manufacture/drawing articles

204 Second Period

216,060

○○ Commercial

Article /Sgd./Sgd./

204 Second Period

35,013

○○ (Gu ○○○)

Wholesale and Retail/Linginging materials

1, 2005

20,012

○○ Corera

Sub-materials of wholesale/type

204 Second Period

40,010

1, 2005

7,065

○○ Commercial

Sub-materials of wholesale/type

204 Second Period

67,022

1, 2005

7,065

0000.000

Wholesale and Retail/Linginging materials

1, 2005

30,010

○ ○

Manufacture/Deposit processing

204 Second Period

40,014

○

Wholesale and Retail/Linginging materials

204 Second Period

50,006

C. Accordingly, on March 8, 2006, the Defendant filed an accusation against the Plaintiff and Lee ○, its representative director, on the data, and on April 1, 2006, the Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount based on the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from the instant purchaser, and on April 1, 2006, included the additional tax for the reason that the instant tax invoice was prepared in falsity, the amount of value-added tax for the second period of 2004, including the additional tax for the reason that the instant tax invoice was prepared in falsity, and the amount of value-added tax for the first period of 2005, KRW 16,270,430 for the first period of 205, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “each

[Details of Correction of Value-Added Tax for Second Year 2004] (Unit: Won)

Tax Base

Sales amount

Purchase Tax Amount

Vehicle reduction meters

Tax amount already paid

Additional Tax

Details of imposition;

Reporting

672,226,600

67,222,660

61,470,172

5,752,488

6,430,646

678,158

Correction

6,285,600

628,560

86,100

542,460

6,430,646

13,567,228

7,679,040

Tax Base

Sales amount

Purchase Tax Amount

Vehicle reduction meters

Tax amount already paid

Additional Tax

Details of imposition;

Reporting

432,447,600

43,244,760

43,823,870

-579,110

-579,110

Correction

135,130,600

13,513,060

166,770

13,346,290

-579,110

2,345,037

16,270,430

[Details of Correction of Value-Added Tax for the First Period of 205] (Unit: Won)

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through No. 6-2, Eul evidence 1-1 through No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff issued or received the instant tax invoice while making a real transaction, not a processing transaction, the instant disposition that reported otherwise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Defendant recognized each of the tax invoices received from three companies, such as ○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○, among the purchase places during the above taxable period of the Plaintiff, on the ground that the said companies were already accused of the data, etc., on the grounds that the said companies were the companies, etc., the Defendant recognized each of the tax invoices received from three companies, such as ○○, ○○ Textiles, and ○ Trade, on the ground that the said companies received the funds from the Plaintiff and paid them in cash.

(2) In addition, with respect to the tax invoice issued to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company among the sales places during the above taxable period of the Plaintiff, on the ground that: (a) as to the tax invoice issued by the said company to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company, the Defendant: (b) examined the details of the sales amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s account; and (c) made the deposit amount under the Plaintiff’s business owner’s name at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s name adjacent to the Plaintiff’s business place; and (d) determined that the said company’s transaction was conducted without real transactions with the Plaintiff; (b) received the deposit amount under the Plaintiff’s name on the ground that the sales amount was immediately deposited in the same account; and (c) acknowledged that the Defendant’s deposit was immediately deposited in the same account under the Plaintiff’s name.

(3) During the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2004, the Plaintiff did not report the purchase amount of KRW 52,271,000,000, the purchase amount of KRW 134,50,000, the purchase amount of KRW 80,000,000 from the date of the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2004, and KRW 150,000,000,000, out of KRW 184,329,000,000, among the purchase amount of KRW 184,329,000,00,000 as sales amount from the Plaintiff at the time when the said company reported the value-added tax to the Plaintiff.

(4) According to each of the ○○ Bank’s accounts (00-00-000-000-0000) and ○ Bank’s accounts (00-00-00000) that the Plaintiff used for the purpose of paying the purchase price in this case, when the Plaintiff deposits cash to the ○ Bank’s account (000-00-000-0000) and the ○ Bank’s account attached thereto, which revealed the Defendant’s tax investigation on the Plaintiff, the following was confirmed: (a) the details of the money immediately transferred to the ○ Bank’s account used for receiving the payment from the ○ Bank’s account; and (b) the fact that the money was immediately withdrawn from the ○ Bank’s account used for receiving the payment from the ○ Bank’s account; and (c) the fact that the Plaintiff was paid the money by the ○ Bank’s account (000-000-00-000).

(5) On the other hand, in the investigation procedure initiated by the defendant's accusation, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor's Office rendered a disposition on June 23, 2006 that "no suspicion exists on the ground of lack of evidence against the plaintiff and its representative director."

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 3-1 to Eul evidence 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The burden of proving whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, or the supply value, which is a tax base, is, in principle, the tax authorities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22,

Therefore, as shown in the above facts, as to whether the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice not accompanied by real transactions, ① the Plaintiff and its representative director received false tax invoices, or accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by issuing them, but ② the amount corresponding to the transaction amount of the tax invoice of this case is deemed to have been actually transferred or transferred to the Plaintiff or its customer’s account. ③ Meanwhile, it is deemed that the Plaintiff or its customer’s account was immediately withdrawn or transferred, but it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff and its customer did not receive any false tax invoice of this case, solely on the sole basis of the facts that the Plaintiff and its customer did not receive any false tax invoice of this case, or that the Plaintiff did not receive any false tax invoice of this case from the above purchaser. ④ It is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s direct purchase of this case’s account of this case’s account of this case’s account of this case’s account under the name of the Plaintiff or its customer.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's each disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and it is decided as per the division by accepting it.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

○ Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7876 of March 24, 2006)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as "paid tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "purchase tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "sales tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The amount of tax for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

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

1-2. The input tax amount for the circumstances in which the tax invoice under the provisions of Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry items”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall

○ Article 21 Decision and Rectification

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

4. Where there is a possibility of evading the value-added tax due to the causes as determined by the Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

○ Article 22 Additional Tax

(2) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the value of supply shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount:

1. If the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) is not delivered, or the requisite entries of the tax invoice on the delivered portion are not wholly or partly entered, or are different from the fact;

(3) Where an entrepreneur falls under subparagraphs 1 and 2, an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the value of supply not submitted or entered or entered differently from the fact shall be added to the amount of tax payable, or an amount equivalent to 5/1,000 of the value of supply where falling under subparagraph 3, to the amount of tax payable, or deducted from the amount of tax refundable: Provided, That this shall not apply to the value of supply, the transaction of which is confirmed in accordance with the Presidential Decree, in cases where the entered items in the list in the list in the list by buyer

2. Where the whole or part of the registration number or supply value by transaction partner from among the entries in the list of the total tax invoice by buyer submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2) is not entered or entered differently from the fact;

(4) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the supply value corresponding to the input tax amount deducted under a tax invoice, not by the list of total tax invoices by customer, or the supply value declared excessively differently from the facts entered in the list of total tax invoices by customer submitted, shall be added to the tax amount payable or deducted from the tax amount refundable: Provided, That this shall not apply to the supply value of the portion, the transaction of which is verified

2. Where the list of the total tax invoice by customer under Article 20 (1) and (2) is not submitted, or the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by customer in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered, or entered differently from the fact: Provided, That such cases as prescribed by

3. Where the supply value in the entry of the list of the total tax invoice by customer submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), which is entered excessively differently from the fact, is returned.