Seoul High Court-2013-Nu-23487 ( February 27, 2014)

The early high-201-west-1256, 1257, 1258

This disposition is justified as a false tax invoice in excess of the tax invoice received by the subcontractor.

The disposition on the ground that the representative director of the plaintiff was found guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to his personal use of the plaintiff's funds and the fact that he paid the actual personnel expenses, etc. is legitimate.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Tax Invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Supreme Court-2014-Du-12642

○○○ Construction (main)

○ Head of tax office

Seoul High Court-2013-Nu-23487 ( August 27, 2014)

April 9, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The lower court determined that: (a) the Plaintiff’s representative director: (b) received a false tax invoice with excessive appropriation of the amount from four subcontractors, including ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○, etc.”) in 2007 and 2008; (c) was found to have used money for personal use from the Plaintiff’s account as construction cost; (d) was found guilty of having violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) including the aforementioned contents; (b) the instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff of the Seoul Regional Tax Office based on the determination that the said subcontractor was false; (c) the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was refunded value-added tax to the said subcontractor; and (d) the Plaintiff imposed a penalty and penalty accordingly; (c) the subcontractor, including ○○, etc. received the Plaintiff’s payment in cash during the tax investigation process; (c) the Plaintiff’s related persons, including ○○, etc., from the Plaintiff’s account; and (c) the Plaintiff’s objective evidence that it could not have received any amount of cash payments from the Plaintiff.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof or the evidence taxation principle.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

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 other party to the payment of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer has proved to a considerable extent that it is false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data such as books and evidence as to the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009)

The lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to prove that the cost under the instant tax invoice was actually disbursed.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the recognition of expenses under the Corporate Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.