Whether it constitutes a processed purchase tax invoice received from an enterprise present

The burden of proving a false tax invoice is, in principle, the defendant, and the defendant's lack of evidence, so it cannot be recognized as a false tax invoice.

1. On January 2, 2006, the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,225,30 for the first term portion in 2001, KRW 15,240 for the second term portion in 201, KRW 2,277,030 for the first term portion in 202, and KRW 2,222,72 and KRW 720 for the second term in 202 shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff received three copies of purchase tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 31,346,00 and deducted the amount of money equivalent to the above tax invoice as input tax, and issued one copy of the sales tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,524,000 to the non-party company, and filed each value-added tax return during the above taxable period (hereinafter collectively collectively referred to as the tax invoice of this case) by providing the non-party company with one copy of the purchase tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 31,346,00,000 from January 1, 2001 to February 2, 2002.

B. The Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and deducted the relevant input tax amount, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,225,300 for the first period of January 2, 2001, KRW 15,240 for the second period of February 2001, KRW 277,030 for the second period of January 2, 2002, KRW 2,222,720 for the second period of February 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, each of Gap evidence 1 to 3 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and each of Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant tax invoice is unlawful for the Plaintiff to impose the value-added tax on the Plaintiff by regarding it as a false tax invoice and treating it as a false tax invoice, which is related to the normal transaction of sales uf09e and received.

B. Determination

In principle, 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 burden of proving the value of supply, which is the tax base, is located in the taxation authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992): Provided, That if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, unless the other party proves that the pertinent facts in question are not eligible for the application of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation is illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 199

According to the above legal principle of burden of proof, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the tax invoice in this case is a false tax invoice based on the health account statement Nos. 2-1 through 3, and the fact inquiry about the point of OO bank Nos. 3 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the tax invoice in this case is a false tax invoice. Rather, considering the whole purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 8, and 9 (including above numbers), witness Kim OO's testimony, the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party company purchased the gold bullion Nos. 527.7g of June 22, 2001 from the non-party company, 6,093,351 won (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's assertion that the gold bullion No. 1,000g of Jan. 11, 202, 1200, 100g of gold bullion No. 1200,27.10

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case shall be revoked as it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.