Suwon District Court-2015-Guhap-71069 ( October 17, 2018)

Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

Even if there is doubt as to whether a tax invoice constitutes a false representation or a false representation in name, it cannot be inferred that a transaction between each purchaser and the pre-stage business operator is an abnormal transaction just because the transaction between each purchaser and the pre-stage business operator is abnormal, without proof to the extent that it can be reasonably acceptable.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Nu35720 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

- Incidental appellant

AAAAAA

The Intervenor joining the Plaintiff

KKK Ltd.

- Incidental appellant

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap71069 Decided January 17, 2018

on October 26, 2016

on 14, 2018

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant did so to the plaintiff

1) June 1, 2013

A) Of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,493,895,080 (including additional tax) for the first period of 2011

more than 350,762,530 won;

B) Of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,491,518,540 (including additional tax) for the second period of 2011

over KRW 1,465,801,812;

C) Imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,976,572,490 (including additional tax) for the first period of 2012

more than 224,690,855 won;

2) Delay in issuance, collection, and insolvency of the value-added tax invoice for the second period of November 1, 2013, 2012

Imposition of Additional Tax 2,208,631,890

3) Non-issuance, processing, and misappropriation of value-added tax invoices for the first period of July 15, 2014;

The imposition of penalty tax of KRW 755,014,300 on data;

4) imposition of KRW 383,458,280 (including additional taxes) of the corporate tax for the business year 2011 dated June 3, 2013;

5) On May 1, 2013, the income earner of May 1, 201, who was 551,307,383

Notice of change in the income amount of the Corporation

All cancellations.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. One fifth of the total litigation cost incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Defendant.

A. The expenses shall be borne by the defendant, and the part resulting from the participation shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The disposition of imposition of KRW 19,838,790 (including additional tax) on June 1, 2013, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on June 1, 2013 and KRW 19,838,790 (including additional tax) on the second term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2011, imposition of KRW 1,493,895,080 (including additional tax) on the second term portion of the value-added tax for the year 201, imposition of KRW 2,491,518,540 (including additional tax) on the second term portion of the year 201, imposition of value-added tax for the first term of the year 2012, imposition of KRW 1,976,572,490 (including additional tax) is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant rendered on June 1, 2013 to the plaintiff on June 1, 2010

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 19,838,790 (including additional tax) for the second term shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts added or used by the court under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall accept them pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (including each of the judgment of the

2. Parts to be corrected;

○ The following shall be added at the 8th day below that of the first instance judgment:

3) The assertion by the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”).

The details of purchase tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff from the Intervenor in the attached tax invoices constitute real transactions where the Intervenor supplied the Plaintiff with the tax invoices, and issued them.

○ At the bottom of the judgment of the first instance court 9, 8 'A. 2' claims are added after 'A. 3' claims.

After the judgment of the first instance court 11 '(2)', the plaintiff added 'the tax invoice of this case other than the tax invoice issued by the Intervenor andCC Co., Ltd. during the above taxable period to 'the 11 '(2)'.

○ From the 11th judgment of the first instance court to the 12th day from the 2010th day to the 12th day from the 11st day.

During the above taxable period, the Plaintiff may recognize that the instant tax invoice, except for the tax invoices issued by the Intervenor andCC, was false, and the entries of Gap Nos. 49, 139, and 140 (including virtual numbers) are insufficient to reverse it.

(3) Next, with respect to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from the Intervenor andCCCC during the first taxable period of 2011, the Plaintiff was unable to properly measure weight and degree in the above taxable period, and since the Plaintiff’s representative DD did not have any relevant business history, each of the said tax invoices is suspected to be false or nominal, and thus, it is doubtful whether it constitutes a false or nominal name.

However, the following circumstances, which can be known by the purport of each entry and the entire argument of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers) are as follows: (a) the intervenor submitted data to purchase land from other companies to sell land to the plaintiff; (b) the representative EE of the intervenor and the intervenor was subject to a disposition not to be suspected of having issued a false tax invoice to the plaintiff; (c) the plaintiff asserts that weight and net level of the tax invoice are settled by measuring it again at the sales office; (d) the defendant fails to present specific grounds or evidence as to the falsity of each tax invoice; and (e) the total value of supply under the tax invoice issued by each of the above purchasing agencies is about KRW 450 million,00,000,000,000 won, it is difficult to view that the above circumstances alone alone are false or false, or that the name of the intervenor is proved to have been reasonably acceptable.

(4) Ultimately, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and all of the Defendant’s primary and preliminary disposition are not acceptable with respect to the instant tax invoice, except the tax invoice issued by the Intervenor andCC (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) by the Plaintiff during the above taxable period, since the Plaintiff’s primary and preliminary disposition cannot be acknowledged with respect to the non-approval of the instant processed transaction. Therefore, this part of the allegation by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is with merit.

○ The judgment of the first instance court 17th 8th 8th 'FFFFFFFFFFF' is 'FFFFFFF.'

○ At the 17th bottom of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

The mere fact that transactions between each of the above purchasing places and the pre-stage suppliers are abnormal, it cannot be inferred that transactions between the above purchasing places and the Plaintiff immediately constitute an abnormal transaction.

○ The following shall be added to 21th written judgment of the first instance court:

Unlike the taxable period in 201, in the case of the above daily loan, the details of the other companies than the plaintiff are not stated together. According to the above daily loan, the major sales offices are GGGG, while the major purchasing offices are different from the HH.

○ Judgment of the first instance court shall consist of 3 to 22 pages from 21 to 11:

In imposing the value-added tax for the first taxable period in 201, the Defendant is justifiable to deem that the instant tax invoice transaction details concerning the pertinent taxable period, excluding the transaction details acknowledged as non-processing Transactions, constituted a processing transaction. However, it is unlawful to deem that the transaction details recognized as non-processing Transactions constituted a processing transaction, and it also is unlawful to deem that the instant tax invoice sales and purchase for the pertinent taxable period constituted the Plaintiff’s sales and purchase.

Of the above disposition, the tax invoice which is not recognized as a real tax invoice for the processed transaction of this case and not included in the portion omitted in the sales of non-data is deemed as a legitimate tax invoice, and the amount of legitimate tax that is not included in the portion omitted in the sales of non-data is as follows: ① 18,634,174 won for principal tax; ② 3,642,359, ③ under-reported additional tax 7,483,017, ④ 321,002,02,980 won for non-issuance of the tax invoice; ④ 350,762,530 won for non-issuance of the tax invoice; and the excess must be revoked.

○ Written judgment of the first instance court shall consist of 5 to 23 pages from the 22 pages to the 22 pages as follows:

The amount of legitimate tax that is not included in the omission of sales in the above taxation disposition is ① (572,287,45 won - 598,166,280 won (i.e., the amount of tax to be imposed - 646,905,718 won - 48,739,438 won) of the principal tax (i.e., the amount of tax to be imposed - 646,905,718 won - the amount of tax to be paid - 48,439,438 won). ② Additional tax to be paid in bad payment (i.e., the amount of additional tax to be imposed 95,142,586 won due to non-existence of transaction). ③ Additional tax to be paid in excess of the amount of tax to be imposed shall be revoked in whole) (i.e., the amount of additional tax to be imposed 228,905,542 won due to non-recognition of transaction in this part).

○ Judgment of the first instance court shall consist of 11 to 24 pages from the bottom of the judgment of the first instance to the following:

The legitimate tax amount included in the tax amount excluded from the processing transaction among the dispositions above shall be determined as ① 128,102,620 won [134,614,274 won -6,51,654 won -6,680 won - 6,680,80 won - 4,360,169,145 won - 15,226,468 won as to non-payment of penalty tax (tax amount for non-payment of non-payment of non-payment of data)]

○ Judgment of the first instance court shall consist of 1~11 at the bottom of the 24th judgment as follows:

In imposing corporate tax for the business year 201, it is reasonable that the details of the instant tax invoice concerning the pertinent taxable period, excluding the details of non-recognized tax invoices for the instant taxable period, constitute a processing transaction. However, it is unlawful to deem that the instant tax invoice constitutes a processing transaction, and it also is unlawful to deem that the instant sales and purchase regarding the pertinent taxable period constituted the Plaintiff’s sales and purchase.

Since the amount of a political party tax calculated by reflecting the aforementioned disposition is zero won (the specific basis for calculation is the same as the statement in the data on calculation of the amount of a political party tax), the aforementioned disposition shall be revoked in its entirety.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance.