Early High Court Decision 201J 3078 ( October 26, 2011)

It shall not be deemed that the tax invoice was proved by the tax authority that the tax invoice was prepared falsely without real transactions.

It is difficult to see that a tax invoice was prepared in falsity without a real transaction, and even when considering all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the disposition imposed as a processed tax invoice is unlawful because it is insufficient to recognize this point.

2012Guhap397 Global Income and Revocation of Disposition

Song AA

the director of the tax office of Western

September 13, 2012

September 27, 2012

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of the global income tax for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 201 shall be revoked.

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

The same as the order (in light of the evidence A No. 1, the date of the disposition on February 14, 201 is deemed to be a clerical error).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was engaged in the wholesale and retail business of scrap iron and recycled products with the trade name "B resources" from 000, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and when filing a comprehensive income tax return in 2008, the Plaintiff included three copies of purchase tax invoices ofCC and D non-stock (hereinafter collectively referred to as "CC et al.") in the necessary expenses (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice of this case").

B. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a processing tax invoice issued without real transaction, and excluded the purchase amount from the necessary expenses, and issued the instant disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of the global income tax (including additional tax) stated in paragraph (1) of the disposition.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 26, 201 after filing an objection on April 27, 2011, but the request was dismissed on October 26, 201.

[Ground of recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 evidence 1, 2, and 3, and Eul evidence 1 and 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant tax invoice is a tax invoice acquired through actual transactions, and the instant disposition that the Defendant reported differently is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In the event that a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, the tax authority’s proof of whether it is an actual expense and whether it is an actual expense and the other party to the payment of the expenses alleged by the taxpayer has proved to a considerable extent, the taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as account books and evidence, should prove that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

(2) 이 사건에서 이 사건 세금계산서가 실물거래 없이 허위로 작성되었다는 점이 과 세관청에 의해 상당한 정도로 증명되었는지 살피건대， 갑 제4호증， 을 제2 내지 8， 10， 11， 18， 25호증의 각 기재에 의하면，① II산업은 이EE과 최JJ이 운영하였는데，이EE은 허위기재 매출세금계산서 교부，허위기재 매출처별세금계산서 합계표 제출 등의 범죄사실로 2010. 5. 28. 인천지방법원 2010고단877 조세범처벌법위반 사건에서 징역 10월에 집행유예 2년을 선고받은 일명 자료상인 사실，② 최JJ 역시 종전에 운영하던 KKK재산업에서 자료상 행위를 하였다가 적발된 전력이 있는 사실，ㆍ 원고는 CC 등을 매입한 거래처가 이EE인지 또는 최JJ인지에 관하여 그 입장이 일관 되지 않고 매입과 관련하여 이 사건 세금계산서와 금융자료 외 다른 자료를 제출하지 못하는 사실，③ II산업은 2008년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 주식회사 LL이엔지(II산업이 원고에게 공급한 CC 등을 매입한 거래처라고 원고가 주장하는 곳이고，아래 중식집도 그러하다. 이하 'LL이엔지'라고 한다)로부터，또는 성남시 분당구 OO동에 있었던 중식집 'QQQ' 철거현장에서 각 CC 등을 매입하였다고 신고하지 않았고， LL이엔지 역시 CC 등의 매출과 관련한 부가가치세를 신고한 적이 없는 사실，⑤ 원고가 이 사건 세금계산서와 관련된 부가가치세 경정처분에 대하여 는 다투지 아니하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있고， 위 인정사실에 의하면 이 사건 세금계산서가 허위로 작성되었다는 의심이 들지 않는 것은 아니다.

(3) However, other than the above evidence, Gap 6 to 13, and Eul 12, and 13, and 20, and the testimony of J 1 shall be consistently stated that the plaintiff was supplied to 0,000 Won for each of the above 00 KJ accounts (However, the two are the plaintiff's actual business, but the J seems to be the plaintiff's 00, 000 won for each of the above 00, 200, 000 won for each of the above 00, 000 won for each of the 20, 000, 000 won for each of the above 0, 00, 000 won for each of the 20, 000, 000 won for each of the above 20, 00, 000 won for each of the 20,000 won for each of the 20,000 won for each of the 20,000 won for each of the 20.

(4) As long as the supplier ofCC, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff, such as GL and LLN, actually exists and the fact that the purchase price, such asCC, was actually paid to the above supplier via the bank account in the name of EE at the time of issuance of the instant tax invoice, and the facts acknowledged in paragraph (2) are difficult to deem that the instant tax invoice was prepared without real transactions, and even if considering all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize this fact, and there is no other evidence to support this. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.