early 208west2625 ( December 15, 2008)

Whether it constitutes a processed tax invoice that does not trade in actual gold bullion

The representative of a business operator who issued a tax invoice is found guilty, and there is an irregular financial transaction for disguised transactions such as reverse remittances in the name of the place of sales, and thus constitutes a processing transaction without real transactions.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses)

Article 142 (Determination and Revision of Assessment Standard and Tax Amount)

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the instant lawsuit against the chief of the final tax office shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant head of Dongjak Tax Office is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of species.

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first term of March 1, 2002 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), for the second term of February 2002, 5,845,300, value-added tax for the second term of February 2003, 17,202, 202, 17,202,202,202,240,240, and 9,31,500, 500, value-added tax for the second term of August 1, 2007, 205, for each of the imposition of global income tax for the second term of February 1, 2001, 100, 10,65,730, and 209, 205, 2005, 209, 204, 209, 209, 2005, 209, 2005, 209.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1992. 4. 1.부터 서울 종로구 ☆동 56에서 '★★'이라는 상호로 귀금속 소매업을 영위하고 있다.

(b) During the period of taxation from February 2, 2001 to January 2004, the Plaintiff received nine copies of the supply tax invoice of 380,913,00 won from four enterprises other than the following, and filed a final return of value-added tax and global income tax base return:

C. On March 1, 2007, the Plaintiff deemed that each of the above tax invoices was delivered without real transaction, and the head of the tax office issued a revised notice of the value-added tax of 21,369,570 won on March 1, 2007, value-added tax of 2002, value-added tax of 5,845,300 won on February 2, 2003, value-added tax of 5,38,600 won on January 2004, value-added tax of 17,202,202,240 won on August 1, 2007, value-added tax of 9,931,50 won on February 201, 200, value-added tax of 10,65,730 won on January 1, 202 (hereinafter “value-added tax”).

D. The head of Dongjak Tax Office issued a revised notice of the amount equivalent to the supply value of each of the above tax invoices to the Plaintiff on December 3, 2007, as well as KRW 15,805,750, global income tax for the year 2003 and KRW 77,580,320, global income tax for the year 2002, global income tax for the year 2004, global income tax for the year 2004; KRW 56,43,490, global income tax for the year 2004; and KRW 35,012,980, global income tax for the year 201, global income tax for the year 2002, and KRW 31,556,620 for the year 202.

E. On July 10, 2008, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the disposition of imposition of each global income tax by the head of Dongjak District Tax Office, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 10, 2008. On December 15, 2008, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that the disposition of imposition of KRW 56,43,490 on global income tax belonging to the head of Dongjak District Tax Office in 2004 shall be included in necessary expenses, and the tax base and tax amount shall be corrected, and the remaining appeal shall be dismissed.

F. On December 14, 2008, the Defendant corrected the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 56,43,490 for the year 2004 by reducing KRW 6,516,980 for the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 56,533,49. During the instant lawsuit, the Defendant recognized the part purchased from Bright Bad, Bad, and ○○ as a real transaction and decided to be engaged in the industry as necessary expenses. On September 11, 2009, the Defendant revoked the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 35,012,989 for the year 2001, and revoked the Plaintiff’s global income tax of KRW 77,580,320 for the year 202, KRW 57,350,329 for the global income tax of KRW 50,329 for the year 202, KRW 205, KRW 209 for each of the global income tax of KRW 2005,5005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 through 6, 9 through 14, 37 through 39, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part seeking revocation of each disposition of value-added tax in the instant lawsuit is legitimate

Since the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition disposition of each of the value-added taxes by Defendant Sejong District Tax Office, pursuant to Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the Plaintiff’s revocation of the imposition disposition of each of the value-added taxes by its authority on the legitimacy of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff merely requested an examination or a request for adjudication pursuant to the Framework Act on National Taxes and made a decision on the disposition of imposition of each of the global income tax in this case. However, it is obvious that the Plaintiff did not go through the above procedure for each of the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax in this case, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff underwent the pre-trial procedure for each of the dispositions of imposition of the value-added tax in this case, which differs in the tax unit, on the ground

3. Detailedness of the global income in the instant case and whether the global income is classified.

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

원고는 (주)케이골드◇◇◇, (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드로부터 실제로 금지금을 매수한 후 이를 가공하여 순금제품을 판매하였는바, 원고가 위 각 거래처로부터 가공의 세금계산서를 교부받아 이를 필요경비로 산입하였음을 전제로 한 이 사건 종합소득세 각 부과 처분은 위법하여 취소되어야 한다.

(b) relevant statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(c)a recognition;

(1) 서울지방국세청은 (주)케이골드◇◇◇ 및 (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드를 각 부분자료상으로 확정하고 검찰에 2004. 9. 22. (주)케이골드◇◇◇의 대표자인 한□□ 등을, 2006. 2. 16. (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드의 대표자인 김△△ 등을 각 고발하는 한편, 피고들 등 과세관청에 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 포함한 가공거래내역을 과세자료로 통보하였다.

(2) 한□□는 (주)케이골드◇◇◇을 운영하던 중 원고 운영의 '★★'에 2002. 3. 29. 38,727,168원의 허위 매출계산서를 작성하여 교부하였다는 등의 범죄사실로 기소되어, 인천지방법원 2005노1318호로 징역 1년의 유죄판결을 선고받아 그 판결이 확정되었다.

(3) 한편, ① 원고가 (주)케이골드◇◇◇로부터 수취한 2002. 3. 29.자 공급가액 38,727,168원의 세금계산서와 관련하여 2002. 4. 8. 원고 명의로 (주)케이골드◇◇◇의 계좌에 42,600,000원이 입금되었으나, 이는 (주)케이골드◇◇◇의 직원인 허■이 원고 명의로 대리 입금한 것이었고, ② 원고가 (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드로부터 수취한 2003. 10. 25.자 공급가액 35,000,000원의 세금계산서와 관련하여 2003. 11. 4. 원고 명의로 (주) ◆◆◆◆◆골드의 계좌에 38,500,000원이 입금되었으나, 이는 (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드의 직원인 한□□가 같은 날 (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드의 계좌에서 현금을 출금한 후 이를 다시 원고 명의로 (주) ◆◆◆◆◆의 계좌에 대리입금한 것이었으며, ③ 원고가 (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드로부터 수취한 2004. 6. 24.자 공급가액 115,840,000원의 세금계산서와 관련하여 2004. 6. 24. 원고의 명의로 128,000,000원이 입금되었으나, 이는 한□□가 같은 날 원고의 계좌에 현금을 입금한 것을 다시 원고의 계좌에서 (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드의 계좌로 입금한 것이었다.

(4) 원고는 2007. 1. 8. 종로세무서 소속 세무공무원으로부터 부가가치세와 관련된 조사를 받으면서, (주)케이골드◇◇◇과의 거래에서는 대금을 현금으로 결제하였고 입금근거자료를 만들어두기 위하여 거래처 직원이 대리입금하였을 뿐이며, (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드와의 거래에서는 한□□로부터 돈을 빌려서 대금을 결제한 것인데, 한□□로부터 빌린 돈을 갚았는지 여부, 갚았다면 어떻게 갚았는지에 관하여는 기억이 잘 나지 않는다는 취지로 진술하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute; evidence Nos. 7-1 through 4; evidence Nos. 16-1, 2, 17; evidence Nos. 20-1 through 4; evidence Nos. 22-1, 2, 23-1, 33, 36; purport of the entire pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements shall be borne by the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in the facts of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are revealed, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent disposition imposing tax is an unlawful disposition, unless the other party proves the facts in question cannot be eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

이 사건의 경우, (주)케이골드◇◇◇ 및 (주)◆◆◆◆◆골드가 각 자료상으로 고발되어 (주)케이골드◇◇◇의 운영자인 한□□가 원고에게 2002. 3. 29.자 38,727,168원의 허위 세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하였다는 등의 범죄사실로 유죄판결을 선고받아 확정 된 점, 이 사건 각 세금계산서와 관련하여 매출처 명의의 대리입금, 역송금 등 정상거래로 위장하기 위한 변칙적인 금융거래가 이루어진 점, 원고는 현금으로 또는 한□□ 로부터 빌려서 대금을 결제하였다고 주장하면서도 그 자금의 출처나 대여금의 변제관계를 구체적으로 밝히지 못하고 있는 점 등 위 인정사실에 나타난 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려해 볼 때, 경험칙상 위 각 세금계산서가 실물거래 없이 허위로 작성ㆍ교부되었다고 넉넉히 추정할 수 있다 할 것이고, 갑 7호증의 정의 기재만으로는 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 실제 거래에 기한 정당한 것임을 인정하기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 매입비용은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원고의 각 해당 과세기간의 종합소득세 과세표준 산정에 있어서 필요경비로 산입될 수 없는 것이므로, 이를 전제로 한 이 사건 종합소득세 각 부과처분은 적법하고, 이에 관한 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case against the defendant's head of the family office is unlawful, and thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's head of Dongjak Tax Office is dismissed as there is no reason to do so.