Seocho 208west 2935 (Law No. 24, 2009)

a revolving transaction of which the size of the corporation is increased by the volume of sales.

It is reasonable to see that the transaction is a revolving transaction conducted while performing official duties in order to raise the size of the company in the account book by maintaining the quantity of the goods between the customers of the same type of business without maintaining the quantity of the goods.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

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 of KRW 1,172,196 in excess of 1,172,946,230 in the imposition of value-added tax on December 1, 2007 and KRW 1,718,328 in the imposition of value-added tax, and KRW 1,718,328 in the imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff, and KRW 161,464,560 in the imposition of value-added tax on December 26, 2007, and KRW 329,949,410 in the imposition of value-added tax on January 3, 208, and KRW 68,083,680 in all are revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Before the decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure, the Furtype Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Furtype Co., Ltd”) is a corporation that engages in the development, manufacture, wholesale and retail business, etc. of information and communications equipment parts. On July 31, 2008, the non-party company was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure from the Seoul Central District Court on September 1, 2008, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a custodian.

B. As a result of the investigation into the non-party company, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that the non-party company issued and received the processed tax invoice without actual transaction; (b) deducted the false sales tax amount; and (c) determined the value-added tax by making a false deduction of the false purchase tax amount; (b) made a reservation disposition on the non-deductible processed sales amount; and (c) made a disposition of reservation or bonus disposition on the non-deductible processed sales amount; and (d) notified the Defendant

C. The Defendant imposed corporate tax on the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition imposing the value-added tax”) as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition imposing the corporate tax”). The details of imposition of each of the value-added tax and the corporate tax are as follows.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 5-1 through 5, Gap 8-1, 2, Eul 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) 9,873,360 won in the imposition of value-added tax on January 2004

The Defendant deemed that the non-party company received 62,99,96 won from the DD Global Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EEE”), as a processing transaction, and deducted the input tax amount for the non-party company. However, the above transaction does not constitute a real transaction where there are a statement, deposit sheet, financial data, etc.

(2) Disposition of imposition of value-added tax on February 271, 2004 and January 2005

"In this study, between the non-party company and the FMM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "FM"), 5,026,910 won in the second quarter sales and 1,490,40,482 won in the purchase amount, and 10,417,817,910 won in the first quarter sales amount of 10,424,635,910 won in the first quarter sales amount (the limited amount of 6,818,000 won in the sales amount of 10,424,635,910) and 11,520,47,520 won in each processing transaction. However, transactions between the non-party company and FMM are not processed transactions, and Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office did not impose any value-added tax on the non-party company's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment and Punishment (the Specific Crimes No. 206, Jun. 23, 2009).

The Defendant: (a) considered the sales amount of KRW 5,249,540,00, purchase amount of KRW 4,517,490,90,909 as each processing transaction and deducted input tax amount from the sales amount of KRW 5,249,540, and the sales amount of KRW 4,517,490,90 as each processing transaction; (b) however, the RNB90 model was a product with the satellite map of the existing RNB80 model and was actually existing, and there was a large transaction.

(4) Imposition of corporate tax

The disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case was conducted on the grounds that the transaction at issue was processed transaction, and the sales amount was excluded from the calculation of the purchase amount. However, as alleged earlier, the transaction at issue is all real transaction, and thus, the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case, which was conducted on a different premise, is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) 9,873,360 won in the imposition of value-added tax on January 2004

(A) In the event that a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, which is proved to a considerable extent by the tax authority as to whether it is an actual cost, and the purpose of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment thereof have been proved to a considerable extent, the taxpayer needs to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20,

(B) According to each entry of Gap evidence 10-3 and Eul evidence 19-1, the following facts are recognized.

① As a result of the investigation of suspicion of the EE on the data of the HH Tax Office on September 2007, the issue amount of the EE’s tax invoice on January 2004 was KRW 2,842,814,00,000, and the issue amount of the false tax invoice was KRW 2,429,803,00,000. The issue amount of the false tax invoice was 85.4%. Accordingly, the director of the HH head of the tax office determined the EE on the data of the EE and accused the prosecution of the actual representative of the EEE KimGG, who is an offense, and notified the tax authority, including the Defendant, of the details of the relevant processing transaction as taxation data.

② The details of issuance of tax invoices between the non-party company and EEE during the first period of January 2004, and the payment details of the non-party company are as follows:

(C) Considering the above facts and the following circumstances known therefrom, it is reasonable to view that Nonparty 1’s tax invoice of KRW 62,99,996 that Nonparty 1 received from EE was prepared and issued falsely without real transactions. The Plaintiff’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

① The objective financial data submitted by the Nonparty Company as the settlement of the transaction price is only the details of transfer of the money to the account under the name of the JJ and Cho K, which is not related to the EE or its representative or employee, and it is difficult to view it as the payment of the price of the goods arising from the ordinary transaction with the EE.

② Even if such payment can be seen as the payment of the amount for the EE, the EEE was determined on the data as a result of the HH tax secretary’s investigation, and the transfer of the purchase price for the purpose of disguised actual transaction in the data transaction is often conducted. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the transaction between the non-party company and the EE as the real transaction just because the non-party company transferred the money to the EE.

③ Nonparty Company fails to present a certificate of receipt, examination confirmation, data on transport of goods, etc. in relation to goods purchased from EEE.

(2) Imposition of value-added tax on February 2, 2004 and January 2005

(A) According to each description of evidence Nos. 7 and 11-2, the following facts are recognized.

① On September 11, 2007, when the representative director of the non-party company was investigated by the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the non-party company started to enter into a trade free trade agreement with the FMM and enter into a trade agreement such as NA. As the trading process was prepared and sent from the FM bank, the difference between the actual purchase amount and the outstanding amount was set-off. The actual purchase amount was 27,483,000,000,000 won which was reported to be traded with the FMM and the actual transaction amount was 1,70,000,000 won, 30,000,000 won, 70,000 won, 30,000,000 won, 1,740,000,000 won, 1,700,000,000 won, 300,000,0000 won, 630,000,000.

② On November 15, 2007, Cho Jae-chul submitted a confirmation document stating the same contents as “the details of issuance and receipt of processed tax invoices without real transactions” (Evidence No. 11-2). According to the details of the fourth unit purchase price payment attached to the confirmation document, the fact that the sum of the amount paid by FMFM to the non-party company by account transfer or cash delivery (the sum of value-added tax plus the actual transaction amount of KRW 1,105,841,816) is 1,216,426,000 (the sum of the actual transaction amount of KRW 1,105,841,816). The sum of the amount remitted by the non-party company to FMM is KRW 6,743,707,629 (the actual transaction amount is KRW 6,71,879,662). It is recognized that there was a little difference in the amount actually remitted at the request of the most person in charge of FMMM trading).

③ Nonparty Company was subject to investigation by an investigative agency on the grounds that it issued and received processed tax invoices that do not have any real transaction with FMMM, and was subject to the reporting of value-added tax on each transaction on May 28, 2009, and paid taxes thereon, and was not discovered that Nonparty Company was listed on KOSDAQ due to this transaction. (Evidence insufficient).

(B) According to the above facts, the non-party company issued 10,424,635,910 won out of the total 93,936,00 won issued at the second half of 2004 to MF and the total 10,613,635,00 won issued at the first half of 2005 and the tax invoice which is equivalent to 10,424,635,910 won out of the total 1,654,545,00 won received at the second of 2004, and the total 1,490,40,403,182 won received at the first half of 205, and the tax invoice which is equivalent to 14,635,910 won out of the total 1,654,545,000 won received at the second of 204 without any actual transaction.

The Plaintiff asserts that the act of issuing and receiving the tax invoice is not subject to the intention of unrefluence of sales or excessive deduction of input tax amounts, but is conducted in the course of re-sale of return transactions arising from the continuous transaction relationship with the FMF, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act of issuing and receiving a processed tax invoice different from the fact. However, in the event a correction ground arises due to the return transaction after the issuance of the tax invoice, the revised tax invoice should be issued pursuant to Article 59 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19892 of Feb. 28, 2007) but the non-party company issued a re-tax invoice for transaction other than the sale, and thus, it constitutes a processed tax invoice prepared differently from the fact. The Plaintiff’s assertion that this argument is without merit.

(3) Of the imposition disposition of value-added tax on February 2, 2006, 24,465,400 won

(A) According to each of the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, 7-10, 11-1, 12, 13, and 17, the following facts are acknowledged.

① On August 31, 2006, the non-party company entered into a contract to purchase the NNB70 Model 5,000 (the supply price of KRW 746,640,00 (the same shall apply hereinafter), HTM 18800 (the same product as the RNB80 model; hereinafter referred to as the “RNB80 model”), 20,000 (the supply price of KRW 5,916,00,000), RNB70 Model 15,650 (the supply price of KRW 4,230,960,00) (the supply price of KRW 4,960,00) on the same day when the goods were not supplied, and received a tax invoice under the condition that the supply was not completed (hereinafter referred to as “tax invoice”).

② On December 14, 2006, Nonparty Company issued toCC a tax invoice of KRW 5,249,540,000 (including value added tax, KRW 5,774,494,00) that it supplied the RNB90 Model 20,00 (hereinafter “instant product”).

③ On December 15, 2006,CC issued a tax invoice that supplied the instant goods to AABD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AA”) for KRW 5,454,000,000.

④ On December 28, 2006, AA issued a tax invoice that the instant goods were supplied to BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”) in KRW 3,636,000,000 throughout the 29th of the same month.

⑤ On Aug. 30, 2006, BB issued a tax invoice with the content that it would supply the solution device amounting to KRW 10,680,00,000 toCC, and actually supplied only the device amounting to KRW 6,251,090,910. On Dec. 28, 2006, BB processed that the instant product purchased from AA was supplied toCC at KRW 4,428,90,09,090.

⑥ On August 31, 2006,CC issued a tax invoice with the content that it would supply a four-dimensional device equivalent to KRW 10,893,600,000 to the non-party company on August 31, 2006, and actually supplied only the device amounting to KRW 6,376,109,00 on five occasions from August 31, 2006 to December 6, 2006 (the first tax invoice is partly different from the purchased item), and the remainder is treated as supplying the product of this case to the non-party company in KRW 4,517,491,00.

7) BB, a company producing NB, did not have produced or assembled an order of NB90 model in the NB. In this case, the RNB90 model in the instant case is not entirely different from the existing RNB80 model and its function or appearance, and the transaction parties merely change the existing RB80 model into the name of the transaction.

④ On September 11, 2007, Cho Jae-chul, the representative of the non-party company, was investigated by a tax official belonging to the Seoul Regional Tax Office with respect to corporate tax on November 14, 2006, and was sold toCC on December 14, 2006, and the goods of this case, which were sold toCC on December 14, 2006, were the duplicate transaction with the same item, and the tax invoice of KRW 5,249,540,000 issued with respect to the goods of this case on December 14, 2006, was false tax invoice for which no real transaction was conducted, and this was found to have been conducted with a view to continuing trade withCC.

QQQ의 대표 이RR도 2007. 10. 24. 서울지방국세청에 이 사건 물품에 대한 2006. 12. 28.자 및 2006. 12. 29.자 각 세금계산서(매입처 : AAA), 2006. 8. 30.자 세금계산서(매출처 : CC)는 모두 가공의 세금계산서라는 확인서를 제출했다.

On October 25, 2007, ES also represented by the representative ofCC submitted to the Seoul Regional Tax Office a written tax invoice (BB) dated 30, 2006, August 31, 2006, a tax invoice (sales Office: Nonparty Company), a tax invoice (Purchase Office: Nonparty Company) dated 14, 2006 on the instant goods, and a tax invoice (Purchase Office: Nonparty Company) on December 15, 2006 and a tax invoice (AA) on December 15, 2006.

(B) As seen above, the goods of this case were maintained up to the quantity of the goods in question from December 14 to December 29, 12, and were subsequently purchased from the non-party company in sequence throughCC, AA, BB, andCC. In light of the transaction pattern conducted while the quantity of the goods in question is maintained by the transaction partners of the same type of business for a short period of time, the transaction of the goods of this case constitutes a "pre-time transaction" conducted in collusion with the company with intent to raise the size of the company on the account book by unfasing the sales (in the course of the investigation by the tax office, the parties involved in the transaction of this case including the plaintiff recognized that the transaction of the goods of this case was a processing transaction). Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the transaction of the goods of this case was a processing transaction, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

(4) Disposition of imposition of the corporate tax of this case

As seen earlier, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s transaction details discovered through the processing transaction was caused by the real transaction. Accordingly, the purchase cost initially reported for the pertinent transaction cannot be included in deductible expenses in the corporate tax base, and the sales cannot be included in gross income, and thus, the disposition imposing corporate tax in the instant case, which was conducted by the disposal of corporate tax on the premise that it is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.