Early High Court Decision 2009Du3738 ( December 22, 2009)

Whether a processed tax invoice that does not engage in real transactions related to the purchase of non-ferrous metals has been received

It is determined that the transaction partner received a processed tax invoice that is not a real transaction because the transaction partner was investigated into the data, and the transaction partner does not have basic facilities such as the fraternity, field yard, transportation vehicle, etc. for the scrap metal wholesale business.

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

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

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 value-added tax for the second period of 208 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2009 and the imposition of KRW 61,091,960 for the business year of 2008 shall be revoked in entirety.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a business operator engaged in the non-ferrous metal wholesale business at AAAB BB Dong 115-7, was issued a purchase tax invoice of KRW 173,673,900 (hereinafter “the purchase price of this case”) from the non-party corporation, the cost of supply located at the port of port in the second quarter of the value added tax in 2008 (hereinafter “the purchase price of this case”), and reported the value-added tax and corporate tax to the Defendant by deducting the tax amount related to the purchase price of this case from the purchase price of this case.

B. As a result of the investigation into the Republic of Korea, the head of the tax office of the Port Tax Office deemed the instant tax invoice as a processed tax invoice issued without a real transaction and notified the Defendant of the said tax invoice as taxation data. Accordingly, on October 1, 2009, the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions, which corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 29,564,350 for the second term value-added tax in the year 2008 and KRW 61,091,960 for the corporate tax for the business year 208.

C. On October 19, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial seeking the revocation of each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on December 22, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 10 Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant tax invoice is not a tax invoice by a processing transaction (hereinafter referred to as “principal invoice 1”).

(2) The plaintiff did not know that the name of the tax invoice of this case was disguised, nor did he know that the name was disguised (hereinafter referred to as "principal").

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the assertion No. 1

갑 제2, 5, 7, 13, 14호증, 을 제3, 4호증의 각 기재 및 증인 임XX의 증언에 의하면 ◇◇◇◇◇의 사업장은 ZZ시 Y구 JJ읍 WW리 305-5에 소재하였으나 2008. 7. 28 사무실 임대 후 2개월 정도만 이를 이용한 사실 위 회사는 고철도매업을 위한 계근대, 야적장, 운송차량 등 기본설비를 갖추고 있지 않은 사실, 소외 송SS은 ◇◇◇◇◇의 전 대표이사인 소외 천QQ에게 3,000,000원을 지급하고 위 회사인수 후 2008. 7. 28. 소외 최QQ으로 대표이사 명의를 변경한 사실, 송SS은 부산 지역에서, 박II과 정RR은 서울・경기 지역에서 실물거래 없이 ◇◇◇◇◇ 명의의 세금계산서를 발행한 사실, 송SS은 수수료 3%를 지급받는 조건으로 박II과 정RR에게 ◇◇◇◇◇ 명의의 계화 2개와 도장을 건네 준 사실, 송SS은 박II과 정RR으로 하여금 이 사건 세금계산서를 발행하게 하고 수수료 3%를 지급받은 사실, 송SS이 와이지 코닝 명의의 인감과 도장을 관리하였으며 최QQ은 원고의 대표이사 이NN를 알지 못하는 사실, 증인 임XX은 이 법정에서 에이동, 비동 등 22톤 내지 24톤을 △△산업에서 상차하고 이를 운송하여 원고에게 하차하였고, 원고측으로부터 운송비를 받았다고 증언한 사실, 원고가 박II의 입회하에 이 사건 거래 물건 계근 후 6부의 계량증명서를 발급하여 그 중 원고가 보관하고 있다는 3장의 계량증명서상 계근 중량과 이 사건 세금계산서상 동의 중량이 일치하는 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

According to the above facts, it can be known that it is a data merchant that issues a tax invoice without a real transaction, but the Plaintiff appears to have purchased the instant transaction goods from the △△ industry. In light of this, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice was issued by a disguised transaction, not a processing transaction. As such, the argument 1 has merit.

(2) Judgment on the assertion 2

(A) According to the overall purport of each statement and pleading as to Gap's Nos. 4, 9, 10 through 12 (including a serial number), the plaintiff sent a copy of the company's business registration certificate, the representative director's certificate, and the copy of the company's register to the other party's title, who had been employed in the investigation of the Siesese Tax Department at the time of the transaction of this case. The plaintiff asked the non-party's title, who had been employed in the Siese Tax Office at the time of the transaction of this case, to the effect that the letter will only be a normal real transaction because it had no problem as a result of the computer inquiry, and on September 4, 2008, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 1,041.290 to the generalization of the year 191.290 won under the name of the Soule Tax Office.

(B) However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 7 and 10 and Nos. 8 (including the number of pages), witness testimony and arguments, and the testimony and arguments, the witness Kim Jong-tae testified to the effect that the transaction goods of this case were measured and measured after being transported by △△ industry, a supplier of this case, and the Plaintiff after being transported. However, the previous measurement certificate was written by the supplier in △△△, but the supplier was written in △△, △△. The △△△ was not operated after the closure of the business on July 30, 2007. The plaintiff was issued six copies of the measurement certificate after the closure of the business. The plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the previous measurement certificate of the goods of this case, or that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the previous measurement certificate of the goods of this case.

(C) Ultimately, the argument ② is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.