District Court 2014Guhap8129

The early 2013 middle 3566

It is reasonable to regard the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) The tax invoice of this case was proved to a considerable extent by the tax authorities that the tax invoice of this case was prepared in falsity without real transactions.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu44396 Disposition revoking Corporate Tax, etc.

IsaA

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap8129 Decided May 8, 2015

November 12, 2015

December 17, 2015

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of corporate tax of KRW 367,347,510 on May 20, 2013 against the Plaintiff on May 20, 201 and the imposition of KRW 102,265,890 on the first-year value-added tax of KRW 102,265,890 on the Plaintiff on 2005 and the imposition of KRW 57,067,160 on the second-year value-added tax

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's judgment are as follows, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in part of the reasons for the court of first instance.

Except for the addition of the judgment on the argument in the trial in addition to the following, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Parts used for cutting.

00 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1 ......... ..... ..... .....

The term "tax invoice" is changed to that of "tax invoice".

○ The testimony of the Witness No. 10-11 of the 5th 5th 10-11 is the "Partial Testimony of the SongA" to the "Partial Testimony of the Witness of the First Instance and the Witness of the Appeal Court", and the "Article 26" of the 14th 14th is the "Article 26-2".

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the tax invoice of this case is tax invoice different from the fact, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s deduction of KRW 784,569,000 in the amount of purchase in 2005 exceeds the average margin, the Plaintiff can be recognized as having actually purchased the above amount from companies other than CCC, and therefore, the above amount shall not be included in deductible expenses, at least in calculating the corporate tax base.

B. Determination

1) A tax invoice on a part of the costs reported by a taxpayer is not a real transaction.

In a case where the tax authority proves that a false document has been prepared to a considerable extent that it is an actual cost, and the purpose of the cost claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment thereof have been proved to a considerable extent that it is false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and evidence regarding the fact that such cost has been actually paid, need to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du16406, Apr. 14, 2006; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009; 2010Du1108, Oct. 28, 2010).

2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 10 to 14, the instant tax amount

In light of the circumstances such as the issuance of the tax invoice of this case acknowledged by the first instance court (3. b. 1) which accepted the above amount, the progress of issuing the tax invoice of this case is that if the plaintiff sells stock carried over by the plaintiff, the remaining rate may not be increased as above, and the plaintiff does not assert or prove that the remaining rate has been significantly increased, it is insufficient to presume that the above recognition alone was sufficient to presume that the plaintiff actually purchased solvents equivalent to the above amount from a company other than the CCC, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.