logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
의정부지방법원 2009. 06. 30. 선고 2008구합490 판결
사업자등록신청일이 과세관청 임의로 기재되어 등록전매입세액불공제가 부당하다는 주장의 당부[국승]
Title

The legitimacy of the assertion that the application date for business registration is improper because the tax authority voluntarily stated the application date for registration;

Summary

Although the filing date of the application for business registration argues that the deduction of the pre-registration tax amount is improper, it is confirmed that it is issued on the date of the application as a result of fact inquiry for the head

The decision

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

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim

The defendant on August 2, 2003

A. Disposition of imposing KRW 20,325,140 on Plaintiff Lee ○ in 201;

B. Disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 20,325,140 on Plaintiff Lee Jae-in in 2001;

C. Disposition of imposition of KRW 20,325,150 on the first half of 2001 on both Plaintiff and ○○;

D. Disposition of imposition of KRW 20,325,200 of the value-added tax for the first time in 2001 against Plaintiff Kim Jong-ho;

E. Disposition of imposition of KRW 20,325,140 for the first time value-added tax on Plaintiff Lee Jae-sik in 2001;

confirm that this is null and void.

Reasons

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 2001, the Plaintiffs were issued a purchase tax invoice of KRW 129,583,702 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tax invoice”) in total when purchasing Tracers, Tracers, etc. from M&com on June 20, 201, as land owners of M&com Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M&com”).

B. The Defendant issued the tax invoice of this case from July 13, 2001, which was the date of application for the business registration of freight transportation business registration of the Plaintiffs, on or before 20 days prior to the date of application, and thus, deducted the input tax amount on the ground that the said tax invoice constitutes the pre-registration input tax amount, and imposed value-added tax as stated in the purport of application to the Plaintiffs on August 2, 2

C. The Plaintiffs filed the instant case suit on January 28, 2008, on the grounds that they were dissatisfied with.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 8 evidence, Eul 8 and 11 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is null and void;

A. The plaintiffs' principal

On June 20, 2001, the plaintiffs purchased cargo clers, etc. in the name of the R&com for the purpose of running the aggregate transport business, and even though the R&C entrusted with the application for business registration had applied for the business registration of the plaintiffs to the defendant before July 10, 2001, the worker at the staff of the Pacific office voluntarily entered the date of receipt of the application for business registration as of July 13, 2001. Accordingly, the input tax amount of the tax invoice of this case does not constitute the pre-registration input tax amount. Accordingly, the disposition of this case on the premise that the above input tax amount is the pre-registration tax amount is a serious and obvious defect, and thus, it is null and void.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 17(2)5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006), and Article 60(9) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, input tax amounts for not more than 20 days retroactively from the date of application for business registration shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. The key issue of this case is whether the input tax amount of the tax invoice of this case constitutes the input tax amount before registration, and ultimately, whether the application date for business registration of the plaintiffs is July 13, 200, as alleged by the defendant.

갑 10호증의 1, 갑 19, 23, 25, 27, 38, 39, 40, 46호증, 을 14, 15, 16호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 역삼세무서장, 서초세무서장에 대한 사실조회결과에 의하면 원고들의 사업자등록 신청서에는 모두 200l. 7. 13.이 신청일로 기재되어 있고, 원고들의 사업자등록증 역시 같은 날 발급된 사실, 국세청 자료인 '납세자별 민원처리현황 조회 결과'에 의하더라도 원고들의 사업자등록 신청은 200l. 7. 13. 접수되어 같은 날 사업자등록증이 발급된 것으로 전산입력되어 있는 사실, &&통운의 지입차주인 @@표, 정○수, 정○환, 곽○용, 최○연, 김○규, 조○자도 원고들과 마찬가지로 전산자료상 사업자등록 신청 당일 사업자등록증이 발급된 것으로 기록되어 있는 사실, 역삼세무서장, 서초세무서장은 2001. 7. 당시 신규 사업자등록 신청의 경우 처리기한은 7일이었고, 사업자등록 신청시 법정구비서류를 제출하고 국세청에서 선정한 사전현지확인 대상자가 아닌 경우에는 즉시 발급이 가능하다고 회신한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실 에 의하면 원고들의 사업자등록 신청일은 2001. 7. 13.로 봄이 상당하고, 갑 30 내지 37호증의 각 기재, 증인 이은성의 증언만으로는 원고들의 사업자등록 신청서의 신청일 부분이 담당 공무원에 의하여 임의로 조작되었다는 취지의 원고의 주장을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's challenge that this case is void as a matter of course.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is dismissed, and it is judged the same as the order.