The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual gold bullion was traded on the disposition due to the processing transaction

It is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice that leads to a real transaction rather than being actually purchased from juice and received while remitting the purchase price. It is difficult to recognize that the instant tax invoice was a real transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 16,841,280 for the second period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. In the case of disposition:

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3-7 and Eul evidence 2.

A. From July 1, 1983, the Plaintiff engaged in precious metal wholesale and retail business with the trade name of ○○○-dong, Busan ○○○-dong, 836-○○○-dong, 836-○○○.

B. During the two taxable periods of 2001, the Plaintiff received 80,484,545 won (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) total sum of the supply value from 0,48,545 won from ○○○△△△△ (hereinafter “○○○”) during the two taxable periods, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount on the supply value.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the director of the tax office of taxation of the data that ○○○△△ju issued a tax invoice without real transaction, and deducted the relevant input tax amount by viewing the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without real transaction and as a false tax invoice. On January 3, 2007, on January 3, 2007, the Defendant issued an increase in the value-added tax of 16,841,280 won to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant tax disposition”).

D. The plaintiff's objection was filed on April 4, 2007 with the National Tax Tribunal on June 19, 2007, but was dismissed on September 5, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) First, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, premised on the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant tax invoice without a real transaction, is unlawful merely on the ground that the Plaintiff was an enterprise on the ground that it was accused of having received the instant tax invoice on the ground that it was an enterprise on the basis that it was an enterprise on the basis of data received the instant tax invoice, even though the Plaintiff purchased the current tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from ○○△△△△, and deposited the price in full.

(2) Next, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff before and completed an investigation that had no problem with respect to the transaction amount of the instant tax invoice, but conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff again, and thus, issued the instant disposition. Thus, this is contrary to the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation stipulated in Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree

(3) Lastly, the instant disposition is against the substance over form principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes, the principle of trust and good faith, and the principle of taxation based on evidence, and is unlawful disposition beyond the limit of the tax official’s

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 9,10, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5:

(1) The Plaintiff deposited the payment amount of KRW 12,423,00 on July 9, 2001, KRW 12,343,00 on July 13, 2001, KRW 24,853,30 on July 27, 2001, KRW 12,360,00 on July 30, 201, KRW 13,293,300 on October 23, 2001, and KRW 13,253,00 on October 25, 201, and received the instant tax invoice from ○○○○6,00 in a bank account by telebank.

(2) ○○○쥬얼리는 조○호가 자본금 5,000만 원으로 설립한 회사로 2003년 1기에 주식회사 ○○무역, ○○레이딩 주식회사, 주식회사 ○○퀸, ○○골드 주식회사 등으로부터 총 214,036,000,000원 상당의 지금 등을 매입하여 주식회사 ○○○○골드 외 21개 업체에 판매하였다고 신고하였는데 이러한 매입처 회사들은 관할 세무서의 조사 결과 자료상으로 인정되으며, ○○○쥬얼 리가 2003년 1기의 매입액 중 위 업체들로부터 매입하였다는 금액은 99.9%(214,018,000,000원)에 달하는 한편, 남대문세무서에서 ○○○쥬얼리를 자료상 혐의로 조사하면서 매출처를 조사한 결과 매출액의 81.3%에 해당하는 매출세금계산서가 주식회사 ○○○○골드 외 21개 업체에게 발행된 것으로 나타났고, 그 매출처들의 대부분은 자료상 등의 범죄이력이 있는 업체로 밝혀지자 남대문세무서장은 2006.3.2. ○○○쥬얼 리가 2001.3.5.부터 2003.12.31.까지 매입세금계산서의 대부분을 자료상으로 고발된 업체로부터 수취하였고, ○○○쥬얼 리가 발행한 매출 세금계산서도 가공의 매출세금계산서도 가공의 매출세금계산서라는 이유로 ○○○쥬얼리와 그 대표자 조○호를 조세범처벌법위반 등 혐의로 고발하였으나 조○호의 소재불명으로 기소중지 상태에 있으며, 위 회사의 2001년부터 2003년 사이의 당기순이익은 1억 6,000만 원에 불과하였다.

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice of the plaintiff's first argument is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction, based on the direct evidence or all the circumstances. If the defendant has proved to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to dispute the illegality of the defendant's disposition to present relevant evidence and materials.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192 delivered on September 26, 1997, etc.)

Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased ○○○○○○ 6,00,000 won from ○○ 6,000,000 won or more from ○○ 6,000,000 won or more from ○○ 6,00,000 won or more from ○○ 6,00,000 won or more from 1,000,000 won or more from 1,000,000,000 won or more from 1,000,000,000 won or more from 1,000,000,000 won or more from 2,000,000 won or more from 2,00,000 won or more from 1,00,000 won or more from 2,00,000 won or more from 2,00,00 won or more from 2,000,00.

(2) As to the second argument of the Plaintiff

Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a re-investigation may not be conducted on the same tax item and the same taxable period except in the case where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in subparagraphs B through 12, have been conducted in order to clarify whether ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” was on the data from April 29, 2003 to December 31, 2005. The defendant conducted a general revised investigation on the tax invoice from March 9, 2004 to March 17, 2004. After completion of the tax investigation on the tax invoice of this case, after completion of the tax investigation on the tax invoice of this case, he cannot be seen as a normal transaction, and upon completion of the tax investigation on the tax invoice of this case, he cannot be seen as a taxpayer's tax evasion and the defendant's notification of the tax evasion of this case to the defendant.

(3) As to the third argument by the Plaintiff

On the other hand, it is difficult to recognize that each disposition of this case goes against the substance over form principle, the principle of trust and good faith, and the principle of taxation based on evidence under the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that the discretion of the tax official goes beyond the limit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff's assertion on

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.