propriety of the disposition of non-deductible of the tax invoice received from the suspect in material

It is difficult to see the instant transaction in actual transactions in view of the fact that the online remittance amount among the amount paid for the goods is less than 120 cash payments and that the tax invoice was issued without actual transactions at the time of the initial tax investigation.

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act)

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 44,296,380 on December 1, 2004 against the Plaintiff and KRW 32,189,620 on February 1, 2001, and imposition of KRW 237,756,930 on January 3, 2005, respectively, and revocation of the imposition of KRW 237,756,930 on January 3, 2005.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of manufacturing and selling electronic, electricity, machinery, apparatus, wired and wireless telecommunications equipment, and wholesale and retail business of electronic components at his/her domicile.

나. 구로세무서장은 2004. 6.경 원고가 2001사업연도(2001. 1. 1. ~12. 31.)중 임☆☆의 '★★전자'로부터 받은 공급가액 합계 479,298,000원 상당의 매입세금계산서가 실물거래 없이 수취된 가공세금계산서임을 확인하고 피고에게 과세자료를 통보하였다.

다. 피고는 2004. 12. 1. 금융거래내역에 대한 확인 등의 조사를 거쳐 위 공급가액 479,298,000원 중 금융기관을 통하여 ★★전자 측으로 입금된 22,591,000원에 대하여는 실제 거래사실을 인정하고, 나머지 공급가액 456,707,000원 상당의 매입세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)는 실물거래 없이 수취된 가공세금계산서로 보아 매입세액 불공제하여 원고에게 2001년 1기 부가가치세 44,296,380원 및 2001년 2기 부가가치세 32,189,620원을 경정·고지하였고, 2005. 1. 7. 같은 이유로 위 456,707,000원을 손금불산입하여 2001사업연도 법인세 237,756,930원을 경정·고지하였다.(위 부가가치세 및 법인세 부과처분을 통틀어 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition on March 4, 2005, and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 25, 2005, but the request for examination was dismissed on December 12, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 3, and the whole purport of pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

원고는 임☆☆로부터 현금으로 대금을 지급하면 10%를 할인하여 준다는 제의를 받고 물품대금의 대부분을 현금으로 결제하였고, 이 사건 세금계산서는 ★★전자와의 정상적인 전자부품 거래를 통하여 실제의 거래내용에 다라 진정하게 발행된 것이므로, 이 사건 세금계산서가 위장가공거래에 의한 허위의 세금계산서임을 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “amount of tax payable”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input tax amounts 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 submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, excluding the input tax amount in such

Article 212 (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 of value-added tax or tax amount

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

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

4. Where there is a possibility of evading the value-added tax due to the causes as determined by the Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

m. Corporate Tax Act

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of the concerned corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided in this Act.

(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.

Article 66 (Settlement and Correction)

(2) Where a domestic corporation files a report under Article 60 in any of the following cases, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall correct the tax base and

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

2. Where he fails to submit all or part of the payment records under Article 120 and Article 120-2, the total account statements for each seller or seller under Article 121, or the total amount of sales and purchase tax invoice by customer or customer;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(2) The provisions concerning the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of the income, profit, property, act or transaction.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 8 through 11, Eul evidence 13 through 19, Eul evidence 46, 52, 53, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 6-1 through 72, Eul evidence 8, 9, 11, Eul evidence 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 18-1, 2, Eul evidence 19-1, 2, 20-1, 20-2, Eul evidence 20-1, 2, Eul evidence 22-1 through 22-3, Eul evidence 1, 23-1, 24-1, 25-2, 1, 25-1, 26-1, 27, 20-2, 1, 27-2, 20-1, 27-2, 20-1, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-1, 2, 3-2

(1) 임☆☆ 경영의 ★★전자는 1998. 7. 1.부터 2002. 3. 31. 자진폐업할 때까지 서울 구로구 구로동 1258 ○○유통상가 나동 4***호에서 전자부품 등 도매영업을 한 업체로 2001년도 1기분 매출액을 3,106,987,000원, 매입액을 2,890,994,000원으로 하여 부가가치세 21,598,000원을, 2001년도 2기분 매출액을 2,171,507,000원, 매입액을 2,062,321,000원으로 하여 부가가치세 4,437,000원을 각 신고·압부하였다.

(2) On June 30, 2004, in the Guro Tax Office, the fact that the Guro Tax Office reported the Siro Tax Office of △△△ to the person suspected of being in the data market was to include the total amount of KRW 479,298,00,00 in total, including the total value of KRW 271,193,00,000, and the total value of KRW 7,000,00 in the total value of KRW 208,105,00, and KRW 200,00,000 in the total value of KRW 1,201, and the amount of KRW 1,200,000 in the 2001. Accordingly, on June 30, 2004, the Guro Tax Office filed a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with the Siro

(3) On December 21, 2005, the ○○ Police Station asserted that, with respect to the rest of the transaction parties except for the “Saebbus” and “Sabus electronic”, it received a normal tax invoice from the other transaction partners, and denied the facts of suspicion. The transaction partners including the Plaintiff also asserted that there was a real transaction, and on the grounds that the statement was consistent with that of the transaction, they were sent to the prosecution by a non-prosecution on charges of the remaining companies except for Balbus semiconductor and Mabus electronic. The prosecution also prosecuted only the part on the semiconductor and Mabus electronic.

(4) Of the companies, from among those, which were identified as those in which the △△△△△△, issued the tax invoice for false and processed sales in the old Roster at the time of the investigation into the old Roster, the Plaintiff was also named as ○○ Electronic (representative ○○○○○), ○○ Electric Co., Ltd. (representative ○○○○○), 3○ Electric Co., Ltd. (representative ○○○○), ○○○○○ Industries (representative ○○), ○○○○○○○ (representative ○○), ○○ Electric Co., Ltd. (representative ○○○), Belgium○○○ (representative ○○), ○○○○ (representative ○○), ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (representative ○○), ○○○○○○ (representative ○), and ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (representative ○).

(5) From April 18, 2001 to February 7, 2002, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 652,369,172 in the account in its name from the account transfer to the transaction partner, including Gidong, △△△, etc. Of which, the amount transferred by account transfer to the transaction partner, including Gidong, △△△, is the total amount of KRW 233,075,694, and the amount that cannot be clearly confirmed as to whether it reverts to cash treatment is the total amount of KRW 283,236,222.

(6) The Plaintiff’s sales amount of approximately KRW 2,496,00,000 is about KRW 2,390,000. The purchase amount is about KRW 4.2% of the value added ratio of KRW 2,390,000. The national value added ratio of the type of business identical or similar to the Plaintiff is about 42.75%.

D. Determination

First of all, the tax invoice of this case issued to the Plaintiff at the time of the tax investigation of the Si-Gu Do in Seoul Special Metropolitan City was decided as follows.

Furthermore, it is difficult to readily understand that the online remittance amount to Si/Gun/Gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City is merely about 1/20 of the cash payment amount, and the total amount that cannot be confirmed clearly as to whether it is attributed to the Plaintiff’s account due to cash withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s account is much less than the amount indicated in the instant tax invoice. Furthermore, it is difficult to readily conclude that all the cash withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account was paid to Si/Gun Special Metropolitan City in return for goods.

In order to avoid seizure of the account with a large amount of debt due to the reasons such as default at the time, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Do governor and Do governor made an appearance as a witness in this court. However, in light of these circumstances, it is easy for the Plaintiff to receive most of the outstanding amounts from the Plaintiff to the maximum of 30 million won in cash, instead of cashier's checks. However, considering the fact that most of them are paid in cash other than cashier's checks, it is not easy to understand the fact that the Plaintiff was paid in cash at the time when he was investigated in the old Roster, and the testimony that the fact of false transaction was discovered as required by the tax office at the time when he was investigated in the old Roster, the testimony that the collection of the tax was revoked by submitting explanatory materials for the remaining companies except for Balp semiconductor and Man Electronic, it is difficult to make the testimony as a whole contrary to the fact of additional collection of value-added tax on the 111 business entities, such as Hochi Electronic, etc.

Although Sii-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City was prosecuted only on the issuance of false sales tax invoices on Blus Mad Electronic among the companies that had taken the time of false transaction in the Guro Tax Office, the issuance of false sales tax invoices to the remaining companies, including the Plaintiff, was not prosecuted on the ground that the Plaintiff stated that it was not a false transaction in conformity with the opposite transaction partners of the Sii-si and the other transaction partners. As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the value-added tax was additionally collected on a large number of transaction partners, it is difficult to view that the statements made in the Guro Tax Office of Sii-gu, Sii-si

원고가 신고한 매출액 및 매입액을 기초로 산출한 2001년도 부가가치율은 약 4.2%인데, 이는 동일·유사한 업종의 전국 평균 부가가치율 42.75%에 비하여 현저히 저조하고, 매입액에서 ★★전자로부터의 문제의 매입액 456,707,000원을 차감하여 부가가치율을 산정하더라도 약 22.4%에 불과하여 전국 평균치에 비하여 상대적으로 여전히 과소하다.

Furthermore, the instant tax invoice and the specifications of transactions submitted by the Plaintiff are not accurately in accord with each other.

이러한 사정들을 종합하면, 이 사건 세금계산서는 원고와 ★★전자 사이의 시제 거래내용에 따라 발행된 것으로 보기는 어렵다.

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.