Although the prosecutor's decision on suspicion in connection with the receipt of a false tax invoice is made, the same value of evidence as the final criminal judgment shall not be granted.

There is no explanation that there was a real transaction, and it seems that there was a false tax invoice received a decision of free suspicion, but it cannot be given the same value of evidence as the final and conclusive criminal judgment on the prosecutor's decision of free suspicion. Thus, the existence of the decision of free suspicion cannot be deemed as impeding the fact-finding.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Guhap69352 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

(state) ZZ;

YThe director of the tax office

April 21, 2017

May 26, 2017

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

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 539,654,040, value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 201, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on November 3, 2011, KRW 294,932,060, corporate tax for the first period portion for the year 2012, KRW 174,297,00,000, and corporate tax for the business year 2012, KRW 28,350,860 for the business year 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff reported and paid each corporate tax for the second term portion in 2011 and the first term portion in 2012, and each corporate tax for the business year portion in 2011 and 2011 and 2012, which was a corporation engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of Cheonghwa-dong in ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○-gu, ○○.

나. ○○지방국세청장은 2014. 7. 8.부터 2014. 10. 2.까지 원고에 대해 법인세 등 통합조사를 실시하였다. ○○지방국세청장은, 원고가 ① 주식회사 ○○○○(이하 '○○○○' 라 한다)로부터 [별지] <표1>과 같이 2011. 11. 17.부터 2012. 1. 5.까지 총 15회에 걸쳐 공급가액 합계 2,533,955,384원(2011년 제2기 과세기간 14회 공급가액 합계 2,442,138,123원, 2012년 제1기 과세기간 1회 공급가액 91,817,372원) 상당의 지은(은그래뉼)을 세금계산서를 수취하지 않고 무자료 매입하고, ② 실물거래 없는 허위의 세금계산서를 주식회사 ○○○○(이하 '○○○○'라 한다)로부터 [별지] <표2>와

As shown in the table 3, 201, one sheet (34,200,000 won) was received from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (former trade name “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”) during the second period of 2011, and [Attachment sheet 3] was issued 29 sheets during the first period of 2012 (total supply value of KRW 1,329,350,00) and ○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○”) during the first period of 2012 as shown in the table 4, and (3) a false tax invoice was issued to ○○○○○○○○○○ without a real transaction without a real transaction [Attachment sheet 5].

C. According to the results of the above investigation by the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○, the Defendant included the tax amount supplied and sold as non-data from ○○○○○○, and excluded the input tax amount of the false tax invoice received from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and issued to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○. The tax amount of the false tax invoice issued to ○○○○○○○○○○ shall be deducted from the output tax amount, and the amount sold after being supplied as non-data from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, including the Plaintiff’s income amount, on November 3, 2014, the value-added tax for the second period of KRW 539,654,040

060 won, 174,297,00 won for the business year of 201, and 28,350,860 won for the business year of 2012 were corrected and notified, respectively (hereinafter "each disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6-1 to 26, Gap evidence 8-1 to 5, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 26, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

⑴ 원고는 ○○○○로부터 4~5회에 걸쳐 200kg의 은 그래뉼을 무자료로 공급받은 사실은 있으나, [별지] <표1>과 같이 2500kg의 은 그래뉼을 무자료로 공급받은 사실은 없다. 원고가 인정하는 200kg을 제외한 나머지 부분은 ○○○이라는 사람을 ○○○○에 무자료 거래할 수 있도록 소개시켜 주었을 뿐이다.

The tax invoices issued between the Plaintiff, ○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○, [attached Form 2] and marks 3, marks 4, and marks 5, are actually traded, and thus, there is no false tax invoice.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that each disposition of this case shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Determination

(i) Whether the material was purchased from ○○○○

을 제1, 3 내지 12호증의 각 기재에 의하여 인정되거나 알 수 있는 다음의 각 사실 또는 사정, 즉 ○○○○의 대표자 조○○은 ○○○○가 2011년 11월 이후 밀수입한 은괴의 약 80%인 3톤 가량의 은 그래뉼을 세금계산서 없이 무자료로 원고에게 판매하였고 그 내역은 정확하지는 않으나 [별지] <표1>의 내역과 같다고 진술한 점, 원고에게 은 그래뉼을 배달하고 김○○으로부터 대금을 수령한 ○○○○ 소속 직원 박○○는 '원고에게 은 그래뉼을 건네줄 때에는 원고 대표자 구○○과 전화통화를 하였으므로 통화내역을 보면 은 그래뉼 전달시기를 대충 유추할 수 있다'고 진술하였는데, 원고가 ○○○○와 무자료 거래를 한 기간 동안 박○○가 최소 8회 이상 구○○ 및 김○○과 통화를 한 것에 비추어 볼 때 무자료 거래 횟수가 4~5회에 불과하다는 원고의 주장은 이를 그대로 믿기 어려운 점, 원고는 피고가 주장하는 무자료 거래량 2500kg 가운데 원고가 인정하는 200kg를 제외한 나머지 부분은 ○○○이라는 사람을 ○○○○에 무자료 거래할 수 있도록 소개시켜 주었다고 주장하면서도 ○○○의 구체적인 인적사항에 대하여는 밝히지 못하고 있는 점, 원고의 대표자 구○○은 2012. 4. 16.에는 '○○○○로부터 2011. 12. 16., 2011. 12. 19., 2011. 12. 23., 2011. 12. 24.경 은 그래뉼을 4회 합계 200kg 가량 무자료 매입하였다'고 진술하다가 2013. 6. 27.경에는 '무자료 매입하지 않았다'는 취지로 주장하다가, 2014. 7. 18.에는 '원고가 무자료매입을 하지는 않았고 ○○○에게 200kg(약 2억 원) 가량의 무자료 거래를 소개하였다'는 취지로 진술하는 등 그 주장내용이 변경되어 온 점 등을 종합하면, 원고가 ○○○○로부터 [별지] <표1>과 같이 총 15회에 걸쳐 공급가액 합계 2,533,955,384원 상당의 은 그래뉼을 세금계산서를 수취하지 않고 무자료 매입하였다고 보는 것이 타당하다(다만 갑 제4호증의 기재에 의하면 원고는 2011. 12. 9.경부터 2011. 12. 26.경까지 5회에 걸쳐 은 그래뉼 200kg을 무자료 매입하였다는 범죄사실로 약식명령을 받은 사실이 인정되나, 위 약식명령에서 기소되지 않은 부분에 대해 검찰의 불기소결정이 있었다 할지라도 확정된 형사판결과 동일한 증거가치를 부여할 수는 없으므로, 위 약식명령의 존재가 위와 같은 사실인정에 방해가 된다고 볼 수 없다).

【○○○○○○○○ received a false tax invoice

In light of the following facts or circumstances, ○○○○ and its purchaser (hereinafter referred to as “stock company” in the name of each company, ○○○○○ and its purchaser (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○○○”) as a result of an investigation of ○○ regional tax office, and the Plaintiff transferred money transferred from ○○○○○○○○○ on November 22, 201, to which the Plaintiff received money from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but the Plaintiff stated that the money was not remitted from ○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○ was not identified on the basis of 14 evidence. Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff’s sales of ○○○○○○○○ was not identified on the basis of ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○, etc.), it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s transactions were conducted with an essential and detailed content of each type of evidence.

• Whether a false tax invoice is received from ○○○ Sales

In light of the following facts or circumstances, the head of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 1, 2, and 12, 13, and 15 through 18, and the following facts or circumstances, i.e., the head of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s ○○○○○○○○○ 2, supra, was acquitted on the facts that the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice, but there was doubt that the reasons for innocence was not sufficient evidence as evidence related to the facts charged. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ 2’s 3-year 2-year 2-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-3-6---6-6-3--6---6---7-7---7-7--7-7--7----7-7-7-7-7--7--7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-

Applicant Whether a false tax invoice has been received from ○○○○○○○○○○

In light of the following facts or circumstances that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was indicated on July 24, 201, on which the Plaintiff’s name was changed to ○○○○○○○○○○.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (○○○○○○○○○○) as indicated in Table 4, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the method of cash withdrawal at the entrance, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (○○○○○○○○) and the fact that the transaction was conducted on a daily basis; (b) the weight and net-level inspection is essential for the transaction; (c) there is no explanation on the reasons for multi-stage transaction between various companies in light of the location and mobile route of each business establishment; and (d) the tax invoice was issued at a lower price than the international market price as trading price; and (e) the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 2, and 3-2, supra, as the Plaintiff did not appear to have any relation to the establishment of the two-year final and conclusive evidence.

(v) whether a false tax invoice has been issued to ○○○○○○;

According to the above evidence and evidence, "○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 50,00 won transferred 50 won to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2012, based on the following facts or circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff issued a false tax invoice to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 5,00 won on the grounds of the above 49,50,000 won.

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