It constitutes a false tax invoice that does not involve actual objects.

The tax invoice is issued for items not purchased, and it is deemed to constitute a false tax invoice in light of the fact that the tax invoice was filed for suspicion of issuance of false tax invoice.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 3,234,800 for the first period of 2006 against the Plaintiff on June 12, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

가. 원고는 2003.9.1.부터 '서울 ○○○구 ○○○동 '에서 '○○○'이라는 상호(사업자등록번호 : XXX-XX-XXXXX)로 무역업 등을 영위하였다.

B. Upon filing the return of the first value-added tax in 2006, the Plaintiff filed a return by deducting each input tax amount of 25,012,200 won, as indicated below, from the output tax amount, each of the input tax amount of 25,012,200 won in the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

No.

Classification

Date

Items (hereinafter referred to as "goods of this case")

Value of supply (cost)

1

1, 2006

May 10, 2006

Over, PVC original group

6,152,200

2

“”

may 23, 2006

Over, PVC synthetic resin

18,860,000

Total

25,012,200

C. On the other hand, on March 2007, the head of ○○ Tax Office notified the Defendant of the taxation data while the instant tax invoice constituted a processing tax invoice prepared without real transaction in the course of investigating Nonparty Company on suspicion, etc. of material facts.

D. On June 12, 2007, the Defendant recognized the instant tax invoice as a processing tax invoice without real transaction and deducted the input tax amount from the Plaintiff on June 12, 2007 upon notification by the head of ○○ Tax Office, and imposed KRW 3,234,800 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the imposition disposition is legitimate

Since the non-party company purchased goods equivalent to the tax invoice of this case from the non-party company and paid the price, the tax invoice of this case is a normal transaction. Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without real transaction.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The non-party company (the representative was changed to ○○ on Nov. 8, 2005) registered its business as "the opening date of the business, 2004. Nov. 5, 2004; ○○○○-dong 1st floor, ○○○○-si, ○○○○, ○○-si, ○○○○○, ○○-dong 1st floor, Meet (food, miscellaneous), electric materials, electrical appliances, now, precious metal, liquid book, computer, and Dok and retail business, but closed on May 30, 2006.

(2) During the period from August 24, 2005 to April 30, 2006, ○○○○○ issued a false tax invoice in the name of “○○○○○○” in Jongno-gu Seoul, and the tax invoice was falsely stated, which was filed against the head of ○○ Tax Office on June 2006. The non-party company filed a complaint with the head of ○○ Tax Office on the charge of issuing a false tax invoice of KRW 1,656,467,00 in the first half of the year 2006, and the charge of the change of credit card transaction was accused of the non-party head of ○ Tax Office on March 2007.

(3) The purchase amount of the non-party company that reported that the transaction partners of the non-party company sold to the non-party company during the first period of 2006 was KRW 41,791,00 (31,812,00 among them, 31,812,00 won was information and communications expenses, broadcasting receiving fees, electricity fees, tasks, ices, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, etc., and 9,979,000 won was service expenses, but not included in the instant case). The non-party company reported only KRW 18,94,00 among them as purchase amount.

(4) In the first half of 2006, Nonparty Company issued a tax invoice of 12 amounting to KRW 1,656,467,00, including the instant tax invoice, to seven enterprises including the Plaintiff, but only the tax invoice of KRW 216,00,00, which was issued to ○○ System and the stock company.

(5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 27,001,000,000 in the account of the non-party company as a total of KRW 12,000,500 on July 25, 2006 and KRW 27,001,00 on July 28, 2006. The Plaintiff stated that “the instant tax invoice was received by mail from the non-party company” at the time of the investigation on March 207.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap 1, 2, and No. 1, 7, Eul 1, 2, Eul 3-1, 2, Eul 4-1, 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. As such, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant's disposition, is in a position that it is easy to present relevant evidence and materials.

(2) In the instant case, the following facts revealed: (i) the representative of the non-party company filed an accusation with the tax authority on suspicions, etc. of issuing false tax invoices including the instant tax invoices at the first period of 2006; (ii) the goods of this case were not included in the goods purchased at the first period of 2006; (iii) the non-party company filed a return on only one of the tax invoices issued at the first period of 2006 (1,65,467,000 won), among the tax invoices issued at the first period of 206 (1,65,467,000 won), and only one of the tax invoices (216,000 won), among the tax invoices issued at the first period of 206 (2) was not reported; (iv) the non-party company’s purchase amount at the first period of 1,6791,000 won was considerably different from the Plaintiff’s tax invoices issued at the time of 200, and there was no reasonable evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoices.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is lawful, and the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be rejected as it is without merit, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 16 Tax Invoice

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he/she shall deliver an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, at the time provided for in Article 9 (where Presidential Decree prescribes otherwise, the time otherwise, such time as prescribed by Presidential Decree). In such cases, a tax invoice may be modified, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error or correction, arises

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

Article 17 Tax Payment Amount

(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 the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, except in such case as prescribed by

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