logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2007. 07. 18. 선고 2006구합9222 판결
실물거래 없이 매입세금계산서를 수취한 행위는 사기 기타 부정한 행위에 해당함[국승]
Title

An act of receiving a purchase tax invoice without a real transaction constitutes fraud or other unlawful act.

Summary

Since the Plaintiff’s receipt of a tax invoice for 10% of the zero-rate tax rate is also expected to receive a refund of the amount equivalent to the input tax amount, it is reasonable to view that the exclusion period of national tax should be 10 years since the Plaintiff’s receipt of the purchase tax invoice without real transaction constitutes fraud or other unlawful act.

Related statutes

The exclusion period for national tax assessment under Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall be confirmed and paid.

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 41,282,200 on January 2, 2000 against the Plaintiff as of January 2, 2006 by the Defendant is revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an entrepreneur who runs textile wholesale business in ○○-5, ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○,” and on January 200, the Plaintiff received each purchase tax invoice of KRW 179,254,840 (hereinafter referred to as “purchase tax invoice of this case”) in the aggregate of the supply values of KRW 179,254,840 (hereinafter referred to as “the purchase tax invoice of this case”) without any real transaction from the company ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) during the first taxable period of 200, and without any real transaction, issued the sales tax invoice of KRW 197,180,320 (hereinafter referred to as “the purchase tax invoice of this case”) in the aggregate of the supply values of zero-rate 197,180,320 (hereinafter referred to as “○○ trade”). The value-added tax was paid by including each of the above tax invoices.

B. As of January 2, 2006, the Defendant issued a disposition to correct and impose value-added tax amounting to KRW 41,282,200 on the Plaintiff as of January 2, 200 on the ground that each of the above tax invoices was a processed tax invoice (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 3, 2006.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the legality of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received or issued the purchase tax invoices and sales tax invoices of this case on behalf of the same company upon the request of ○○○○○○○○ for the purpose of securing the payment of the accounts receivable for ○ trade (the provisional seizure of claims by a third party). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not have any intent to evade taxes on its own. Meanwhile, in the process of issuing the sales tax invoices of this case to the extent that the total sum of the supply values on the purchase tax invoices of this case (including value added tax) and the total sum of the supply values on the sales tax invoices of this case (excluding value added tax) correspond to the total sum of the supply values on the purchase tax invoices of this case, the Plaintiff did not necessarily result in a refund of the input tax amount on the purchase tax invoices of this case.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s failure to evade, refund, or deduct national taxes due to fraud or other unlawful acts, the instant disposition was unlawful since it was conducted after the lapse of five years, which is the exclusion period for the imposition of national taxes.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice of this case from ○○○○○ upon the request of ○○○○○○○○○○○ without performing real transactions, and issued the sales tax invoice of this case to ○○○○○○○ trade with the same supply value as the aggregate value on the purchase tax invoice of this case. As seen above, the Plaintiff’s issuance of the purchase tax invoice of this case at zero tax rate resulted in a refund of the amount equivalent to the aggregate on the purchase tax invoice of this case, and the Plaintiff could have anticipated such result as a matter of course. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s deduction of the input tax amount in calculating the value-added tax on the Plaintiff after receiving the purchase tax invoice of this case from ○○○○○○○○○○○ without any real transaction constitutes fraud or other unlawful acts under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 206).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the exclusion period for the imposition of value-added tax on the first term portion of 2000 against the plaintiff is five years is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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

[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu24359 ( October 26, 2008)]

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 41,282,200 on the part of the Defendant on January 2, 2006 against the Plaintiff as of January 2, 200 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.

arrow