Whether input tax deduction for disguised processing transactions is possible

The defendant bears the burden of proving the legality of the disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement, but the disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount without proof is illegal.

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

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax amounting to KRW 3,564,00 for the second period of 202 against the Plaintiff on April 3, 2006, KRW 4,484,70 for the first period of 2003, KRW 4,319,100 for the second period of 203, KRW 3,047,220 for the first period of 204, KRW 2,526,670 for the second period of 204 is revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 8, 1980 to 00-00, the Plaintiff engaged in the electronic components and visual manufacturing business with the trade name of '○○○○○○○○dong 000 to '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, from September 8, 2002, from 2002 to 2004, the supply price of KRW 120,99,000 for the supply price of KRW 20,000 for the second period from 202 to 2004 (hereinafter referred to as '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the tax invoice of this case was deducted as the input tax invoice of this case (hereinafter referred to.

B. On December 29, 2004, the head of the ○○ Tax Office: (a) deemed the ○○○○○○ as data and accused the ○○ Police Station; and (b) notified the Defendant of relevant data.

C. Accordingly, on April 3, 2006, the Defendant issued a disposition of this case imposing value added tax of KRW 3,564,00 for the second term portion in 2002, KRW 4,484,70 for the second term portion in 2003, KRW 4,319,10 for the second term portion in 2003, and KRW 3,047,220 for the first term portion in 204, KRW 2,526,670 for the second term portion in 204, and KRW 2,670 for the second term portion in 204.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on June 19, 2006, but the said claim was dismissed on September 11, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without real transaction despite the fact that the plaintiff purchased the tax invoice of this case from ○○ World and paid the price in full, and received it

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false shall, in principle, be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by a real transaction based on direct evidence or circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192 delivered on September 26, 1997).

Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the tax invoice of this case as to whether the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice not accompanied by a real transaction, and each statement of Eul Nos. 3 through 19 (including virtual numbers) alone is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (In light of the statement of Gap No. 5, the defendant's above assertion is without merit, on the suspicion that ○○○○, the representative director of ○○ ○○○○○○, received a false tax invoice without a real transaction, issued a false tax invoice, or violated the Tax Law Punishment Act. However, the defendant's complaint was filed with the ○ Police Station on suspicion that he was suspected of having been subject to a disposition on Dec. 23,

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

[Valued Tax]

Article 17 (Payable Tax 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 list of the total tax invoice by customer submitted, or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact

Article 21(1)2 and 3

Article 21 (Settlement and Correction)

(1) The head of a 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 determine or correct the tax base and amount of value-added tax or tax

2. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of a final return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted, or all or part of the list of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered