Whether a tax invoice received from data is a real trade (SteM retail trade)

The details of the statement of purchase sales place, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff and the testimony of the witness are insufficient to recognize such assertion because it is difficult to find out the relationship with the details of transactions claimed by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18260 ( November 15, 2007)]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal in comparison with the records and the judgment of the court below. Since it is clear that the grounds of appeal by the appellant fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, it is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

[Seoul High Court 2006Nu2226, 207.24]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of corporate tax of KRW 108,216,850 for the business year of March 2, 2004 and corporate tax of KRW 29,954,320 for the business year of 2002 and corporate tax of KRW 115,983,060 for the withheld income of March 9, 2005 and tax of KRW 29,347,820 for the withheld income of KRW 20 for the year of 2002 shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the testimony of "A21" is used as "each testimony of "A21" after the 19-1 to 4 of the evidence No. 2 of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, and the testimony of "A21" is used as "the testimony of "A21" of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance, Kim ○, and Kim ○ of the party witness Kim ○," and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Insuwon District Court 2005Guhap7496 ( August 16, 2006)]

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 108,216,850, and corporate tax of KRW 29,954,320 for the business year 2002, and corporate tax of KRW 29,954,320 for the business year 2002, respectively, against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of KRW 115,983,060 for the amount of withholding income for the year 2001, March 9, 2005 and the amount of withholding income for the year 2002 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that wholesale retails and manufactures steel materials, construction materials, and steel industrial machinery, etc. established ○○○ on ○○○, 198.

B. On January 10, 2001 to March 31, 2002, the head of ○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice 9 as shown in the table below (hereinafter “tax invoice in this case”) received from January 10, 2001 as a non-real transaction tax invoice; (b) excluded the value of supply from deductible expenses; and (c) disposed of bonus as a representative; and (d) decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 108,216,850 as corporate tax for the business year of 2001 as corporate tax for the business year of 200, and corporate tax for 29,954,320 as corporate tax for the business year of 202; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income; and (d) notified the Plaintiff of each of the instant disposition in this case of withholding income tax for the year of 2001 as tax withholding KRW 29,347,200.

Suppliers

Date of issuance

Supply Products

Value of supply (cost)

Socs and totals (wons)

○○ Comprehensive Commercial Corporation

January 10, 2001

Steel materials

14,938,900

51,375,900

February 28, 2002

19,711,100

March 20, 2001

16,725,900

○ Construction Corporation

October 10, 2001

Iron/Iron/Iron/

H-BEM

74,079,625

230,239,436

November 22, 2001

80,545,436

December 9, 2001

75,614,375

○ Industry (Representative ○○)

January 15, 2002

H-BEM

34,646,495

9,570,081

February 15, 2002

30,567,645

March 31, 2002

9,570,081

Total

381,185,417

381,185,417

C. Meanwhile, ○○○ City’s national tax administration was integrated with ○○○○ Tax Office, which was in charge of the administration of the national tax, and ○○○ Office, which was in charge of ○○ City’s national tax administration, and ○○ Office was newly established as of April 1, 2004, and the authority was succeeded from ○○ Office of Tax Administration to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 12, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Business practices for the sales of steel products

As steel distributors like the Plaintiff purchase and sell steel as it is, or sell it after undergoing simple processing, such as cutting or cutting, etc., the average margin (a gross profit ratio) is limited to 8 through 9%. As such, because the output ratio is very low, it is almost the only way for the Plaintiff to purchase steel at low prices as business in the same field of the world like the Plaintiff to purchase steel at low prices, and thus it is common to purchase steel at low prices through a brokerage. However, tax invoices are issued under a tax invoice in the name of a supplier, not a brokerage but a brokerage, and the buyer receives the actual goods, and then pays the actual goods to a broker. In the case of steel retail business, in order to purchase steel goods at a construction site, etc., it is difficult to prepare cash immediately at the construction site and make it difficult to do so.

(2) The authenticity of transactions between the Plaintiff and Kim○○ and the illegality of the instant disposition

The Plaintiff confirmed that steel materials supplied by suppliers were consistent with the transaction amount stated in the instant tax invoice after receiving steel materials from Kim○, a construction company of ○○ Construction and ○○ Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. since 2001 and around 2002, and paid the purchase price to Kim○, knowing that the supplier under the instant tax invoice was entrusted with the sale of his own goods to the intermediary Kim○, and received the instant tax invoice. As such, the instant disposition that deemed the Plaintiff and Kim○ as a transaction for processing was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The ○○ Comprehensive Commercial Company, ○○○ Distribution, ○○ Construction Company, which issued the instant tax invoice, was confirmed as an enterprise that issues the tax invoice without any real transaction as a result of the tax investigation.

(2) Comparing the tax invoice of this case, the details of the entry into the purchase place, the details of the bank account opened with ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the Plaintiff’s name (Account Number ○○○○-○○-○-○○-○, ○○○-○○-○○-○-○○-○○-○○) and the details of the entry into and exit from the sales place, the details of the entry are as shown

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 12 evidence, Gap 13 evidence 13 to 3, Gap 14-1, 2, Gap 15-1 to 4, Eul 6-1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff, who is a taxpayer, should prove that the instant tax invoice was actually traded in accordance with such tax invoice, since the processing tax invoice issued by the data form is identical to that recognized.

(2) Therefore, as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to see the Plaintiff’s 1 to 3, 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 1 to 3, 5-1 to 5, 5, 1 to 5, 1 to 3, 7-1 to 3, 18-1 to 8, 10-1 to 3, 11-3, 11-1 to 3, 14-1, 2, 17, 19-1 to 4, 19-1 to 3, 14-1 to 4, 14-1 to 3, 14-2, 19-1 to 3, 19-4, 1 to 3, 1 to 3, 15-1 to 4, 1 to 3, 1 to 3, and 1 to 4, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s testimony and 14-1 to 18, 3001.

(3) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice for processing no real transaction is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Details of comparisons

(unit: Won)

Details of the tax invoice of this case

Details of the purchase ledger;

Withdrawal of Deposits

Place of Sales

Suppliers

Date of issuance

Proceeds from supply

Date of entry

Amount of bookkeeping

Amount of the withdrawn money

Sales proceeds

(m)○○ General Commercial

January 10, 200

16,432,700

January 31, 2001

16,432,700

28,829,636

(m)○○ General Commercial

February 28, 2001

21,682,210

5, 201

21,682,210

16,297,533

16,297,533

(m)○○ General Commercial

201.3.20

18,398,490

501.31

18,398,490

30,000,000

Sub-committees

56,513,400

Sub-committees

56,513,400

○ ○ Construction (State)

o October 10, 201

81,487,587

September 28, 2001

20,000,000

20,000,000

○ ○ Construction (State)

November 22, 2001

8,599,979

oly 24, 2001

10,000,000

10,000,000

○ ○ Construction (State)

December 9, 2001

83,175,812

oly 31, 2001

60,000,000

62,054,441

November 12, 2001

40,000,000

46,716,950

November 30, 2001

20,000,000

20,000,000

December 31, 2001

35,000,000

52,673,810

January 14, 2002

30,000,000

14,256,390

15,743,610

January 31, 2002

38,263,378

67,166,968

Sub-committees

253,263,378

Sub-committees

253,263,378

○ Industry Ma○○

January 15, 2002

38,111,144

January 25, 2002

12,000,000

12,017,500

○ Industry Ma○○

February 15, 2002

3,391,535

January 31, 2002

24,000,000

67,166,968

○ Industry Ma○○

202.3.21

38,024,409

d February 28, 2002

32,000,000

54,531,212

o April 8, 2002

15,000,000

13,430,000

1,570,000

.28 2002

26,527,081

30,354,723

Sub-committees

109,527,088

109,527,081