The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual transport service was provided as a simplified taxable person with respect to this disposition through a processing transaction

In light of the fact that financial materials were not visible that the Plaintiff paid the transaction amount, and that each car registration number of the Plaintiff’s claimant as the actual transaction counterpart is indicated as a transport vehicle in the specifications of the Plaintiff’s submission, etc., it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 14 of the former Corporate Tax Act

Article 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the claim are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 31,493,530 for the year 2002 against the Plaintiff on July 2, 2007 and KRW 1,962,210 for the year 203 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s steel pipes and corporations engaged in wholesale and retail business; the time of filing corporate tax returns in 2002 and 2003; KRW 26,180,000,000, the total value of tax invoices received from ○ Transport Co., Ltd. during the first and second years of 2002; KRW 24,620,000, the total value of tax invoices received from ○ Transport Co., Ltd. during the second period of 2002; KRW 20,170,000, the total value of tax invoices received from ○ Transport Co., Ltd. during the second period of 2002; and KRW 4,750,000,000, the total value of supply of tax invoices received from ○○ Co., Ltd. during the first period of 2003 (hereinafter “instant transaction amount”).

B. On July 6, 2007, the Defendant determined that the above tax invoice reported and paid by the Plaintiff was the purchase tax invoice for processing without real transactions, and determined that the amount equivalent to the value of supply is the deductible expenses, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 31,493,530 of the corporate tax belonging to the year 2002, and KRW 1,962,210 of the corporate tax belonging to the year 203 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order for the Plaintiff to sell the iron pipes, lectures, etc. through wholesale retail, transportation services are indispensable. The order quantity, etc. is not fixed so that the Plaintiff requested the transportation of the freight cars through the brokerage of the ○ Company, whenever necessary, when it does not own the freight cars itself, and the Plaintiff requested the transportation of the freight cars by the brokerage of the ○○ Company. The Plaintiff merely received a tax invoice from the ○ Company that brokered the transportation of the freight cars in a relationship that cannot issue the tax invoice due to its business registration as a simplified taxable person, and thus, the instant disposition that did not recognize it as losses for the reason that it is a processed transaction without real transactions is illegal and unjust.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 14 of the former Corporate Tax Act

Article 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act

Article 56 of the former Corporate Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the grounds of the illegality of taxation disposition, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact, so the tax authority should bear the burden of proving necessary expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, in the case where there are special circumstances such as where the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was proved to be false without real transaction, and the tax authority has a substantial burden on whether it is real expenses, and where it is disputed whether it is reasonable for the taxpayer to claim expenses and the other party to the payment was proved to be false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present books and evidence, etc. regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2005Du16406, May 14,

(2) In light of the fact that there is no evidence showing that the Plaintiff paid the instant transaction amount, and the Plaintiff’s respective car registration number claimed by the Plaintiff as the actual transaction counterpart is indicated as the transport vehicle in the specifications of the Plaintiff’s submission (Evidence No. 3-1, No. 2, and Evidence No. 7-1, No. 7-2, and No. 3), the Plaintiff’s submission alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant transaction amount should be included in deductible expenses, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

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