Whether a tax invoice issued at the time of acquiring a building is false or not;

It is true that the tax invoice received by a person who is not the party to the contract by an agreement of interim omission registration or a contract for a third party is different.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Although all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, the argument on the grounds of appeal by the appellant falls under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal, and therefore, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as

[Subjuju District Court Decision 2007Nu950 (No. 24, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's additional disposition of value-added tax of 16 million won for the second period of 2000 against the plaintiff on March 9, 2006 shall be revoked.

The court below held that the other party to the tax invoice of this case is not only ○○○, but also the other party to the tax invoice of this case, and thus, the tax invoice of this case shall be deemed to be a false tax invoice, and that the defendant does not simultaneously impose the plaintiff the additional tax on the plaintiff as the additional tax on the list of the total tax invoices by seller and the additional tax on the failure to report. The judgment of the court below is just

Therefore, this court's reasoning refers to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment below in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Electricju District Court 2007Guhap754, 2007.20)]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2005 imposed on the Plaintiff on March 9, 2006 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs real estate sales business, etc. after completing the registration of a business entity whose type of business is a "real estate sales business" from August 9, 2005.

B. On October 25, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a preliminary return of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax in 2005 with the Defendant as zero won; (b) on September 22, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased a total of KRW 1,362 square meters prior to 237-1, 237-1, 362 square meters from the same 231-52 square meters; (c) 496 square meters of forests and fields; (d) 231-53 square meters of forests and fields (hereinafter referred to as “each of the above lands”) on the ground that the Plaintiff purchased the pertinent tax invoice for the total of KRW 160,000,000 from the supply price of KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won; (b) on the ground that the said tax invoice was purchased from the Plaintiff’s early.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 12, 13 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 16 evidence, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The original ○○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. newly constructed the instant building as its owner. This ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s representative director, was requested to lend money. From May 4, 2004 to June 9, 2004, leased 200 million won to ○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. for three times through ○○○, ○○○, and ○○ Limited Co., Ltd., and thereafter, transferred the instant building owner’s name on May 8, 2004 to ○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., 2005, 5 billion won to ○○○○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., and 500 million won to ○○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., 2005, 500 million won out of the purchase price was paid to ○○○○ Construction Co.

(2) Even if the instant tax invoice is deemed to be a false tax invoice, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of double taxation prohibition, since it imposes double penalty tax on the filing of a list of total tax invoices by single seller.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of pleadings as a whole in the evidence mentioned in Gap evidence and evidence mentioned in Gap evidence mentioned in Gap evidence mentioned in subparagraph 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19-1 through 19, 21, Gap evidence 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and Eul evidence mentioned in Eul evidence mentioned in subparagraph 3.

(1) On November 5, 2003, ○○ Distribution completed the registration of creation of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of which is 1.6 billion won, with respect to the instant land, from ○ Bank (a bank prior to the alteration: ○○ Bank) on November 5, 2003. All until November 17, 2003, 1.17 billion won was loaned from ○○ Market to ○○ Industrial Development. On December 1, 2003, the construction permit was granted on the ground that the constructor of the instant building was the ○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., and on April 26, 2004, the name of the owner was changed to ○○○○ on May 8, 2004.

(2) On April 30, 2004, 200 million won after ○○○○ Distribution reported the change to ○○○○○. The Plaintiff’s representative director, ○○○○○○○○○ and 200 million won out of the construction funds of the instant building. To secure repayment, ○○○ and ○○○○○○○ transferred 1/2 each of the shares in distribution of ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 50 million, and ○ ○ 40 million, ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 200,000,000,000 won, ○ 50,000,000 won, ○ 40,000,000,000 won.

(3) On December 29, 2004, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was already changed to ○○○○○○○, and the ○○○○○○○○○○ filed a complaint against the instant land as fraud, knowing the fact that the ○○○○○○ had already been under investigation. On May 31, 2005, the ○○○○○○○ and the ○○○○○○○○, a building owner of the instant building, at the time of construction, concluded a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 1,55 million (hereinafter “sales contract as of May 31, 2005”). The ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 50 million was paid the additional construction cost of the instant building to ○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 500 million, and the 500 million was additionally paid to the ○○○○○○○○.

(4) On May 31, 2005, 2005, the day of the above sales contract, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a shareholder of the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, agreed entirely to the appointment of a new ○○○○○○○, separate from the sales contract, and received a written promise from the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which shall not perform any act, such as change of the representative director until the registration of initial ownership transfer after completion of the building, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 50 billion, a sales contract with the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000).

(5) ○○ completed the instant building and obtained approval for use on September 16, 2005. On September 23, 2005, 2005, ○○○ District Court’s registry office on September 23, 2005, which completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the Plaintiff’s name under the receipt of 48057 on September 23, 2005. The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from ○○○○○ for supply value of KRW 80 million, value-added tax amount of KRW 80 million, and submitted it to the Defendant at the time of the preliminary return of value-added tax for the second half-year period of 2005.

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)1 and 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that if the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment in accordance with the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to cases where the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in which the goods or service is actually supplied or received, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10,

On August 9, 2005, most of the funds necessary for acquiring the ownership of the instant building were paid by ○○○○○. The Plaintiff’s commencement of its business appears to be a juristic person established by ○○○○○○ to transfer the ownership of the instant building. This ○○○○○, after the conclusion of the sales contract on May 31, 2005, appointed ○○○○○○’s representative director as having a close relation with ○○○. ○○, ○○, made a performance agreement, and made a sales contract on several occasions with the Plaintiff on behalf of ○○○○, and this ○○○○, which had already been established on May 31, 2005, prepared a sales contract on the basis of the form of “○○○○○○○○’s agreement, which had already been adopted on behalf of ○○○○○○○, which had already been transferred to ○○○○○, a title of the instant building, which had already been transferred to ○○○○.

However, the sales contract between ○○ and ○○ on May 31, 2005 shall be deemed to be an agreement on intermediate omission registration or a contract for a third party. Accordingly, the parties to the sales contract on May 31, 2005 shall be deemed to be ○○○. The Plaintiff shall not be deemed to be a party to the sales contract on May 31, 2005, and the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to be a party to the sales contract on May 31, 2005. However, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have received an investment of the instant building from ○○○○ in the Plaintiff’s assets (only from the perspective of ○○, the other party to the transaction of the instant building shall not

Therefore, since the tax invoice of this case is deemed to have been written differently from the fact by the other party to the supply, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit

(2) Whether imposing additional tax on incomplete entry of the aggregate tax invoices by seller and additional tax on negligent tax returns is contrary to the double taxation principle.

Article 22(3) and (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 463, Dec. 31, 1993; Act No. 4808, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5032, Dec. 29, 1995) imposes an obligation to submit to the tax authority the list of total tax invoices by customer in an unfaithful manner to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims; and the provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Additional Tax Act.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.

3. Conclusion

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

Relevant statutes

/ former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of total tax invoices by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount by customer, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, from among the entries on the list of total tax invoices by customer submitted, excluding the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

Article 21 (Settlement and Correction)

(1) The head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall make a decision or correction upon the investigation of the tax base of value-added tax or the tax amount to be paid in relation to the taxable period, only where a businessman falls under any of the following subparagraphs:

3. Where, in making the final tax return, the list of the total tax invoices by customer or seller is not submitted, or the whole or part of the entries in the submitted list of the total tax invoices by customer or seller is not entered, or entered differently from the fact;

Article 22 (Additional Tax)

(4) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the supply value corresponding to the input tax amount deducted under a tax invoice without a list of the total tax invoices by seller, or the supply value returned excessively entered differently from the facts in the entries on the list of the total tax invoices by seller submitted, shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount: Provided, That this shall not apply to the supply value of the portion, the transaction of which is verified as prescribed by

3. Where the supply value in the entries on the list of total tax invoices by seller submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), which is entered excessively differently from the fact, is returned; and

(5) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the amount prescribed in the relevant subparagraphs shall be added to the payable tax or deducted from the refundable tax amount:

1. The amount equivalent to 10/100 of the payable amount not declared (the relevant insufficient amount if declared short) and of the refundable amount declared in excess, in case where the declared tax amount falls short of the payable amount to be declared, or the refundable amount declared exceeds the refundable amount to be declared, pursuant to Article 18 (1) and (2) (proviso) or 19 (1); and

(7) Paragraph (2) or (3) shall not apply to the portion to which paragraph (1) shall apply, and paragraph (2) shall not apply to the portion to which paragraph (3) shall apply.

(8) In the application of the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6), with respect to the portion on which an additional tax is imposed in connection with the preliminary return and payment under Article 18, the additional tax shall not be levied in connection with the final return and payment under

(9) In the application of paragraph (7), with respect to the portion on which the additional tax is imposed in connection with the preliminary return and payment under Article 18, the additional tax shall not be levied in connection with the final return and payment under Article 19.