It is reasonable to view it as a false tax invoice without real transactions.

It is reasonable to view that a tax invoice is issued by a person who is found guilty in a criminal case without a real transaction, and thus the initial disposition is lawful.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on October 12, 2005 each disposition of KRW 930,627,370 for the first term of 204, and KRW 265,298,090 for the second term of 2004, and KRW 184,291,120 for the business year of 204 shall be revoked.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff received 131 Kg (total supply value 1,907,972,560 won), 354 g (total supply value 5,232,052,980 won) from ○○ Stock Company (hereinafter “○○”) and 140 g (total supply value 2,074,53,450 won) from ○○ Stock Company (hereinafter “○○”), and reported purchase tax invoice 22 (the tax invoice in this case) (the total supply value 2,074,53,450 won) from each of the above suppliers and filed a return of value-added tax at an early stage in January and 2, 2004.

B. On October 12, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact; and (b) applied the penalty tax not received as evidentiary documents, and (c) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 930,627,370 for the first period of 1, 2004, KRW 265,298,090 for the second period of 2004, and KRW 184,291,120 for the business year of 204, respectively (hereinafter the instant disposition).

Facts that there is no dispute, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This case’s tax invoice is related to a normal transaction in which the Plaintiff purchased and received actual gold bullion from ○○○ and ○○○○, and thus, deeming it as a false tax invoice and imposing value-added tax by not deducting the said input tax amount. In addition, as long as the instant tax invoice is normal, it is unlawful to impose additional tax by deeming that the Plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice, which is a documentary evidence under the Corporate Tax

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) As a result, the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion after the opening of the business on February 6, 2004, and thereafter exported to Hong Kong, and thereafter received value-added tax, the representative was suspected of leasing the name to ○○ and ○○’s representative without fund and management ability, and even after purchasing ○○○, there was a suspicion of unfairly receiving ○○ and ○○○’s purchase tax invoice and unfairly receiving ○○ and receiving ○○’s purchase tax invoice, and conducting a tax investigation from August 31, 2004 to July 19, 2005.

(2) At the time of the above tax investigation, the representative director of the Plaintiff, the representative director of the corporation, stated that when the first statement about KRW 400 million of the Plaintiff’s established capital, 50 million of his own paid-in capital was lent from his parent, and that the remaining KRW 100 million was deposited in a closed-end business, and that when the third statement was made, 50 million won was lent from his parent, ○○ representative director Kim○, the wife-nam, as the Plaintiff’s shareholder, and 100 million won was argued to have been contributed by Kim○, the full amount of KRW 150 million was claimed to have been borrowed from her own name, but tried to conceal her relative relationship with Kim○-○, the early reduction of the amount was about 150 million of his own capital.

(3) The actual establishment of the Plaintiff Company, the purchase and export of gold bullion, and the settlement of payments;

○○○○ overall control, but ○○○ was found to have been established to increase sales progress, since the cash recovery of domestic sales is delayed, and the value-added tax can be refunded in the event of export because the value-added tax was fixed at the time of purchase.

(4) Meanwhile, ○○○, a representative director of ○○ Prepaid Co., Ltd., the sales office of ○○○○, stated that ○○○○, a real agent of ○○○○, was unable to operate ○○○○ upon her disguised establishment and export of ○○○ Co., Ltd. under the name of ○○○○○, a representative director of ○○○, and ○○○○○, a representative director of ○○○○○, and the ○○○○

(5) On the basis of the career of engaging in the precious metal association, the above ○○○, in collusion with data merchants, etc., when it is necessary to sell free gold bullion purchased to the middle of the city, was revealed that the gold bullion purchased to the middle of the city was sold to the gold bullion wholesale or retail company or exported the gold bullion purchased to the middle of the city through several companies, based on the false tax invoice issued by the said public offering corporation by changing the role by each taxable period or adding transaction stages, based on the false tax invoice issued by the above public offering corporation under the name of the head of the second-class branch having no experience in the field of gold bullion business.

(6) ○○○’s representative director, who received the purchase tax invoice by the Plaintiff, was engaged in the livestock industry, lent only in the name on the proposal of ○○○, an actual operator, without having invested in the capital. This ○○○○ established and operated the ○○○○ by registering ○○ as a shareholder, a fraud, Kim○ and ○○○’s son’s ○○ as a competitor. The transaction amount that the Plaintiff received and paid from ○○○○, a purchase tax invoice, was ○○○○ Company (hereinafter “○○”). The ○○○○○○ Company (hereinafter “○○○○”). ○○○○○○○ Company (hereinafter “○○○○○”). It was confirmed that the ○○○○ Company, which was a purchaser of the ○○○○○○○ Company, remitted the purchase tax invoice in cash from the said company, and the ○○

(7) On April 6, 2007, 2007, the above ○○, ○○, and Glaver○, etc. was convicted by the lower court on the ground that they issued and received false tax invoices in connection with the transaction of gold bullion.

(8) Of the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion 131 Kg and received by ○○○○○○ from ○○○○ in relation to six tax invoices. In 2004, ○○○○○○○○○○○ that received the purchase tax invoice did not file a value-added tax return. In the instant tax invoice, ○○○○○○○ that received the purchase tax invoice did not pay to ○○○○○○○○○, and all of the purchase amount remitted to ○○○○○○○○○○ was withdrawn in cash without paying to ○○○○○○○, and delivered to ○○○○○○○ in 20042, 2004, ○○○○○, a purchaser of ○○○○○○○, which received the purchase tax invoice, did not file a value-added tax return, and the purchase amount that ○○○○ transferred to ○○○○○.

(9) Of the instant tax invoice, it was revealed that the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion 354 Kg from ○○○○○, and purchased gold bullion 140 Kg from ○○○○○○○ and received gold bullion 140 Kg, and ○○○○ and ○○○○○○ received the purchase tax invoice from ○○○○○○○.

【No. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4 through 7, Eul evidence No. 8-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 9-1, 2.3. Eul No. 10, 11

D. Determination

The following facts revealed in the facts of recognition: ① The substantial establishment and operation of the Plaintiff Company was made by the representative Kim○-○, a purchaser of the instant tax invoice;

② In full view of the fact that ○○○○ received the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff is a disguised entrepreneur established by ○○○○ using the name of Kim○○ for the sale of gold bullion, ③ the Plaintiff, a major purchaser of the instant gold bullion, received the processed tax invoice without performing the actual transaction of gold bullion, and all relevant parties were convicted of the processed transaction in the criminal trial; ④ ○○ received the tax invoice without any actual transaction, and the said tax invoice by ○○ and ○○○ shall also be deemed as a false tax invoice without any actual transaction. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice prepared without any actual transaction.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

Related statutes

The relevant laws and regulations at the time this case's taxation requirement is established.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

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

○ Article 76 of the Corporate Tax Act

(5) In case where a corporation (excluding such corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with an entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to receive the evidential documents falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount not received, except for the case where the proviso of

Article 116 (Receipt and Safekeeping of Documentary Evidence of Expenditures)

(2) In cases falling under paragraph (1), where any corporation receives goods or services from a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree and pays the price therefor, it shall receive evidential documents falling under any one of the following subparagraphs and keep them: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases prescribed

2. Tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act;