The plaintiff recognized that the act of evading value-added tax will result in the reduction of national tax revenues, and the exclusion period of 10 years should be applied.

In light of the plaintiff's statement, the plaintiff fully recognized that his act of evading value-added tax would result in the reduction of national tax revenue, and the exclusion period of 10 years should be applied.

The exclusion period of national taxes under Article 26-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

2016Guhap76350 Global income tax

○○○, ○○

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

May 19, 2017

May 26, 2017

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On April 12, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that each disposition of imposition listed in attached Table 1 against the Plaintiffs is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs, who were engaged in the wholesale business, etc. of chemical drugs with the trade name "B" during the period of the value-added tax from January 2009 to February 201, 201, were engaged in the wholesale business, etc. of ○○ and the spouse ○○○○ (hereinafter "B") for the period of the value-added tax, 829,92,850 won (i.e., January 1, 2009 + 10,080,000 won + 15,042,000 won for February 1, 2009 + 80,795,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 12 years, 52,860,000 won for 20 years, + 201,201 won for 14,99,201, 2010 won for 205.

B. From January 2009, Plaintiff Kim○-○ deducted the input tax amount related to the instant tax invoice.

Until February 2013, value-added tax was reported and paid until February 2013 (excluding 2010). The instant tax was paid.

The amount equivalent to the supply value of the invoice was included in the necessary expenses and the comprehensive income tax was returned and paid from 2009 to 2013. The plaintiff head of the plaintiff ○○ also included the amount equivalent to the supply value of the tax invoice of this case in the necessary expenses and reported and paid the comprehensive income tax from 2009 to 2013.

C. From June 18, 2014 to October 15, 2010 of the same year, the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax offense investigation with respect to BB; (b) deemed that BB issued a processed tax invoice without real transaction to the processing seller including the Plaintiffs; and (c) notified the Defendant of the relevant details. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiffs were issued a processed tax invoice without real transaction from BB through on-site verification, etc., and determined that the Plaintiffs were issued a processed tax invoice without real transaction; and (d) on April 12, 2016, the Defendant issued a revised and notified each of the value-added tax and global income tax (including additional tax) listed in attached Table 1, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is valid

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The primary argument

From 2009 to 2013, the Plaintiffs were issued a tax invoice by having actually supplied EXD-40 with products, such as X-D-40. However, only the portion of KRW 96,158,400, out of the instant tax invoice, was issued falsely without real transactions. Plaintiff Kim ○ stated that the instant tax invoice was issued by BB without real transactions from the Geumcheon Tax Office on March 25, 2016, but it is merely a false statement made by tax officials’ strong pressure. Ultimately, the instant disposition was made based only on the Plaintiff Kim○○’s false statement made by the tax official’s strong pressure, and thus, it is unlawful and apparent that the defect was grave and apparent.

2) Preliminary assertion

Even if the Plaintiffs assumed that the entire tax invoice of this case was issued in a false manner without real transaction, the Plaintiffs did not recognize that the State’s tax revenue would be reduced due to their act. Thus, the exclusion period of five years ought to be applied pursuant to Article 26-2(1)3, not to Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same). Therefore, the imposition disposition of value-added tax on Plaintiff Kim ○, which was conducted after the lapse of five years’ exclusion agencies, and the imposition disposition of each value-added tax on February 2009, 209, and each of the tax imposed on the Plaintiffs for January 2010 and each of the tax imposed on global income for 2010 are null and void.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From July 15, 2009 to January 8, 2014, the Plaintiffs remitted total of KRW 819,336,135 to BB, and received total of KRW 96,158,400 from BB during the period from April 9, 2010 to January 12, 2012.

2) In order to pay value-added tax, because most of the zero laundry business places, a seller, in the Seoul regional tax office, intended not to issue a tax invoice because they are simplified taxable persons or non-registered business operators, they were inevitably issued processed tax invoices to the same processing store as the plaintiffs. The plaintiff Kim ○○ has been aware of from 2005, his spouse, the plaintiff Kim ○○, the plaintiff Kim ○. The plaintiff was transferred the price of false goods from the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the spouse of the plaintiff Kim ○ or the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, or returned them in cash to the plaintiff Kim ○○. The plaintiff Kim ○ was received each time the receipt was returned in cash to the plaintiff Kim ○○ ○○. Since then, the police argued that the goods was actually supplied and the tax invoice was actually issued, but the plaintiff stated that the remaining processed sales store without issuing the plaintiff's other than the above part of the processing sales.

3) O○○○ also consistently between the police and the prosecution, issued processing tax invoices to the processing shop like the Plaintiffs in order to ensure the purchase and sales by taking out the tax invoices issued, and received 5% of the issued amount in return. The actual supplier of the goods stated to the effect that “CC, D, EE, etc.” is “CC,” the supplier of the goods.

4) O○○ was indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) and on September 11, 2015, the suspended sentence of two years and the fine of three hundred million won from the Seoul Central District Court for eight months.

Seoul Central District Court 00 million won (Seoul Central District Court 00 ○○○○○○)

The Seoul High Court appealed with ○○○○○○, and the Seoul High Court reversed the lower judgment on December 4, 2015, and sentenced ○○○ to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight months and a suspended sentence of a year and a fine. The foregoing judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

5) Plaintiff Kim ○ issued a processed tax invoice of KRW 892,92,000 in total, without exercising the right to refuse to make a statement by a tax official in the Geumcheon Tax Office, and without exercising the right to refuse to make a statement by the tax official, and in excess, approximately KRW 892,92,00 in total were issued. The Plaintiff Kim ○ stated to the effect that the total transaction amount was remitted to the Osung's account, and the remainder after deducting value-added tax was returned in cash, and that it paid the amount equivalent to 6% in Osung in return for the issuance of the processed tax invoice.

6) The first list of the total tax invoice by customer submitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in 2009, stating that the Plaintiff was issued a tax invoice by 29 companies other than BB, and 2, 2009

In the previous list of total tax invoices, the plaintiff was issued by 33 companies in addition to BB.

D. Judgment on the plaintiffs' primary assertion

In order for an administrative disposition to be null and void as a matter of course, the sole fact that there is an illegality in the disposition.

(1) The Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is void in a case where the Plaintiff claims the invalidity of the administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeks the invalidity of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Nu8669, Jun. 19, 197; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2003Du2403, Nov. 26, 2004).

The statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 11, 13, and 14 alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs were actually supplied with the products such as X-do D-40 and received the tax invoice of this case from Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. In addition, the statement in Gap evidence No. 12 to the effect that the tax officials belonging to Geumcheon Tax Office forced the plaintiff Kim ○○ to make a false statement is not trustable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, it is acknowledged based on the facts and purport of the entire pleading as seen earlier.

In light of the circumstances stated in the above, it is sufficiently recognized that the plaintiffs were issued false tax invoices of this case without being supplied with the products such as X-Do D-40 by BB, and that the plaintiffs Kim Jong-○ stated the true facts with the child in the Geumcheon Tax Office. Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful, and therefore, the plaintiffs' primary arguments are without merit.

1) ○○ and ○○○ are processed cash accounts to the Plaintiffs at the Seoul Regional Tax Office or an investigative agency.

In particular, ○○○ issued a processed tax invoice to the processing sales office that includes the Plaintiffs, led to the confession and conviction of all the facts constituting an offense, even though the facts charged were prosecuted, and there is no motive for ○○ and Ma○○ to make a false statement and to make a false statement.

2) While the Plaintiff Kim ○ issued a notice of the right to refuse to make a statement from a tax official in the Geumcheon Tax Office, the Plaintiff Kim ○ stated in detail and in detail the process and method of issuing the processed tax invoice from Osung, without exercising the right to refuse to make a statement. In particular, the Plaintiff Kim ○ stated that he paid 6% of the value of supply in return for the issuance of the processed tax invoice in Osung, and specified the detailed matters. It does not appear that the tax official forced the Plaintiff Kim Jong-tae to make a false statement or made a false statement on the fact that the Plaintiff Kim ○ did not exist.

3) The Plaintiffs recognized that the processing tax invoice was issued for the portion that was distributed KRW 96,158,400 in total from April 9, 2010 to January 12, 2012.

4) The Plaintiffs were supplied goods or services from 29 companies in addition to BB from January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009. From July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiffs were also supplied goods or services from 33 companies in addition to BB. The products, such as X-D-40, the Plaintiff supplied to the Co., Ltd., Ltd., are deemed to have been supplied from other companies than BB.

E. Judgment on the plaintiffs' preliminary assertion

1) Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where a taxpayer evades a national tax, or receives a refund or deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful means, a national tax shall not be levied after the lapse of 10 years from the date on which the relevant national tax is assessable.

2) There is no doubt that the act of evading the value-added tax and the global income tax by means of fraud or other unlawful act is a matter of concern in the case where the value of supply after deducting the relevant input tax amount issued by the processing tax invoice without being supplied with goods is evaded, refunded, or deducted.

3) However, in order for the ten-year exclusion period to be applied pursuant to Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, there should be awareness that the person who committed fraud or other unlawful acts would bring about a decrease in the national tax revenue due to his own act. Therefore, it is a question whether the plaintiffs have recognized that it would bring about a decrease in national tax revenue resulting from their fraudulent and other unlawful acts.

First of all, it is about the evasion of global income tax.The global income tax is different from the value added tax.

The act of reducing the amount of income by including the amount equivalent to the value of supply stated in the processing tax invoice in necessary expenses itself constitutes an act of reducing the amount of global income tax by reducing the amount of global income tax, and thus, it cannot be presented if the person who intentionally said act of evading global income tax does not recognize the amount of national tax revenue. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are sufficiently aware that the act of evading global income tax would result in the reduction of national tax revenue.

Next, it is deemed as to the evasion of value-added tax. In a case where an entrepreneur issued a processed tax invoice to a person who was supplied with goods but did not issue a tax invoice to the person who was supplied with the goods and filed a return of the output tax amount at the competent tax office for the purpose of complying with the purchase amount and sales, it may be deemed that the processing tax invoice was filed formally with respect to the person who was issued the processed tax invoice; however, in a case where the processing tax invoice was filed with respect to the person who actually supplied the goods, not the person who was issued the processed tax invoice, and the person who was issued the processed tax invoice, the filing of the output tax return with respect to the person who was issued the processed tax invoice, cannot be deemed to have been filed. Therefore, if the person who received

As seen earlier, Plaintiff Kim○-○ stated that he received a processed tax invoice in excess of that time to issue the sales tax invoice from “B” in Geumcheon Tax Office, and that he was issued a processed tax invoice. The Plaintiff Kim○ appears to have sufficiently recognized the circumstances of issuing the processed tax invoice to Plaintiff Kim○○ due to the refusal of receipt by the person who was actually supplied the goods. Accordingly, Plaintiff Kim○-○ was fully aware of the fact that the act of the Plaintiff Kim○-○ would result in the reduction of national tax revenues.

4) Therefore, pursuant to Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, the value-added tax imposed on Plaintiff Kim○-○ from January 2009 to February 2, 2013 (excluding February 2010) and the Plaintiffs from 2009.

Since the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax by the year 2013 is not five years but ten years, the plaintiffs' preliminary assertion is without merit on different premise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.