Whether the purchase tax invoice was issued falsely without actual transaction

The fact that a large amount of transactions has been paid in cash (for commercial practice, it is difficult to obtain payment), there is no objective evidence of the current payment, there is sales data, and thus it cannot be readily concluded that it is a real purchase. The same content is the same as that of a criminal trial that has become final and conclusive as having no real transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 19,746,350 for the first term portion of year 2001 against the Plaintiff on April 5, 2007, and KRW 4,183,790 for the second term portion of year 2001 (it appears that the amount of KRW 4,183,00 for the second term portion of year 2001 is a clerical error), KRW 814,760 for the first term portion of year 2003, value-added tax for the second term portion of year 203, KRW 1,649,810 for the second term portion of year 203, KRW 419,480 for the corporate tax of 201, and KRW 3,854,180 for the business year 203.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the whole purport of each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 6, 7 and 11:

A. When the Plaintiff was established on April 1, 1997 and operated a visual manufacturing business on March 30, 2007, the Plaintiff closed its business on March 30, 2007, the value-added tax for the first term of 2001, the value-added tax for the second term of 2003, the value-added tax for the second term of 2003, the value-added tax for the second term of 2001, the corporate tax for the business year of 2001, and the corporate tax for the business year of 203, the amount of ○○ Funds Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “○○○”) was deducted from 92,359,621, the total value-added tax invoice for the 4th term of 201, and each of the above 3th term supply values for each of the above 4th term transaction (hereinafter referred to as the “one transaction”).

B. On April 5, 2007, the Defendant deemed that the purchase tax invoice of this case was issued without a real transaction, and deemed that the purchase tax invoice of this case was issued without a real transaction, the Defendant deducted the purchase tax amount and added the purchase amount to the deductible expenses, and subsequently corrected and notified the Plaintiff for the first year of April 5, 2001 value-added tax of 19,746,350 won, value-added tax of 4,183,790 won, value-added tax of 201 for the second year of 2003, value-added tax of 814,760 won, value-added tax of 1,648,810 won for the second year of 203, value-added tax of 41,119,480 won, and corporate tax of 3,854,180 won for the business year of 203 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the National Tax Tribunal on June 28, 2007, but was dismissed on September 28, 2007,

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the purchase tax invoices of this case, the part of January 2001 and the part of February 2001 (this case 1, 2001, 1, 2001, 2001) purchased ○○ from leap, a precious metal company, and received ○○ in lieu of the tax invoice. Of the purchase tax invoices of this case, the part of January 2003 and February 2, 2003 (3, 4 transactions in this case) purchased ○○ gold from ○○ and received a normal tax invoice (in particular, if the Plaintiff did not purchase this, it would not have been able to sell by manufacturing the current visibility, etc.). Nevertheless, the disposition of this case reported differently is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 22-2 (Effect of Revision, etc.)

Article 13 (Tax Base of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 13 (Tax Base of Corporate Tax Act)

Article 14 (Income for Each Business Year of Corporate Tax Act)

Article 15 (Scope of Gross Income)

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 15 through 19, Gap evidence 16-1 through 8, Gap evidence 17-3 through 16, Gap evidence 18-1 through 8, Gap evidence 20-1, 2, Gap evidence 21, Eul evidence 8 through 13, Eul evidence 1 to 14-14, and Eul evidence 5:

(1) The Plaintiff received the instant purchase tax invoice from the Plaintiff as indicated in the following table:

Purchase Tax Invoice of this case

Taxation Period

Purchase

Value of Supply

The amount in settlement;

1, 2001

4

92,359.961

Cash Settlement

2, 2001

4

19,99,890

Cash Settlement

1, 2003

1

5,418,187

Credit Card Settlement

2 2003

4

11,389,854

Credit Card Settlement

(2) There is no specific documentary evidence on the particulars of payment 35 days at the value of the 1, 2 transactions in this case (the plaintiff asserts that payment was made in cash) and the 3, 4 transactions in this case are deemed to have been made by the plaintiff 1, 2 transaction by credit card.

(3) In around 2001, the Plaintiff supplied the total supply value of KRW 481,148,670 in ○○○ shopping, a total of KRW 110,703,267 in 00, the total supply value of KRW 37,359,91 in ○○ Home shopping, a stock company, and KRW 6,098,896 in 00, and around 2003 in 231,710,498 in 00.

(4)Papman, on April 25, 1999, engaged in precious metal repair business under the trade name of ○○○dong, Seoul, ○○○dong, 82, ○○○○○○○○, but closed on July 30, 2005, and the details of ○○○’s filing of value-added tax are as follows:

Taxation Period

Sales Tax Base

Purchase Tax Base

Amount of unpaid tax

Jinay

1, 1999

6,000,000

-

275,760

April 25, 1999

2th 1999

4,800,000

-

96,000

1, 2000

-

-

-

without Filing a report

2, 200

-

-

-

without Filing a report

1, 2001

7,200,000

-

162,200

2, 2001

3,000,000

-

67,500

(5)On the other hand, ○○○ was established and operated by ○○ on January 16, 2001, and ○○○○ was operated on July 2, 2002 by Kim Jae-○, who had worked as a regular business. From November 15, 2001 to 2004 as a result of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation, 2,762 companies issued 2,762 tax invoices of KRW 127,081,127,397, total supply value as processed without real transactions, 24,852 tax invoices of KRW 127,732,92,178 from July 202 to June 2004 and filed a complaint with the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office.

(6) During the process of surveying from officials in charge of the Seoul Regional Tax Office as above, Gim Jae issued a detailed statement of sales tax invoices issued by ○○○ from around 2001 to around 2004, and then issued 24,852 copies of sales tax invoices of KRW 127,081,127,397 in total without real transactions to 2,762, and issued ○○○○○ issued tax invoices of KRW 24,852 from July 2002 to June 2004 to 62,732,922,178 in total without real sales.

(7) At the time of the investigation above, Kim Jae-○ issued a false tax invoice to a business entity during the taxable period from January 2001 to January 2004 without actual transaction, and the details thereof are as follows: (a) as the representative of the said business entity, the principal prepared a written confirmation stating that he/she will be responsible for all of the above facts; (b) according to the details of issuance of the processed tax invoice attached to the said written confirmation, each of the instant transactions is stated as a processing transaction.

(8) On December 25, 2005, ○○○ was convicted of the Defendants on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, including: (a) ○○○ was sentenced to three women’s conviction by imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Western District Court on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; (b) ○○○○○ was sentenced to the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the tax invoices listed in the [Attachment Table Table 4] on the charge of preparing and delivering the display tax invoices (including all the purchase tax invoices of this case in the case of the tax invoices listed in the annexed Table 127,081, 127,397) in total from office to 24,852 times; and (c) ○○○○ was sentenced to the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (taxes) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and (d) ○○○○ was sentenced to the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (tax Offenses).

(9)On the other hand, on March 11, 2001, the representative lecture head of the Plaintiff’s corporation deposited KRW 4,772,00 to Park Jong-soo, who was an employee of ○○○○○ on April 201. Of the purchase tax invoices of this case, the amount of KRW 22,720,000, the amount of tax accounting770,000, the amount of which was prepared before and after the payment, and the amount of tax accounting7,00,000, the amount of which was issued, shall be the tax invoice of March 21, 2001, the amount of which was KRW 27,279,573 as of March 31, 201.

D. Determination

(1) Ultimately, the issue of this case is whether the purchase tax invoice of this case was issued falsely without actual transaction, and even if it is not bound by the fact-finding of a criminal trial (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, except as otherwise provided in the Administrative Litigation Act, the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation) in a civil trial, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts of this case are opposed to the fact-finding, barring special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial in light of other supporting items (Article 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 997). According to the above facts-finding, since ○○ was recognized as having issued the purchase tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff without actual transaction, it cannot be acknowledged that it is difficult to employ the judgment of this case in light of other evidence submitted in this case, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

(2)Therefore, in light of the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted in this case, we will examine whether the purchase tax invoice in this case can be recognized as complying with the actual transaction according to the plaintiff's assertion.

However, ① It can be recognized that ○○○○ has deposited KRW 4,72,00 with an employee of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the name of a person who received or issued a false tax invoice without actual transaction during the period from around 2001 to around 2004, which is a 'the inner data'. ② There is no objective evidence as to the fact that 1,2,000 won or more was paid in cash. Moreover, it is not easy to understand that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales business was paid in cash. ③ As seen above, it is difficult to conclude that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales business was a real sales business of 4,772,00 won in the name of a person who was an employee of ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s employee. However, in light of the fact that ○○○○○○’s sales business cannot be determined as a real sales business.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of 00, 16-1 through 56, 17-1 through 13, 17-1 through 43, 1, 2, 19-1 through 6, 10-1, 2, 10-2, 11-1, 12-1, 12-2, 13-1 through 20, 14-1 through 93, 16-1 through 56, 17-1, 18-1 through 8, 19-1 through 38, 20-21, 12-1, and 20-1, 12-21, and 14-1 through 93, 16-1 through 56, 16-1, 17-2, 19-1 through 38, 19-21, and 20-21, respectively, of this case’s criminal tax invoice.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which the defendant recognized each of the trade of this case as a processing transaction and deducted the input tax amount under the purchase transaction of this case and excluded the purchase amount from the deductible expenses, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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