this issue constitutes a false tax invoice which is not prepared in falsity without real transactions.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the transaction of this case is the actual transaction, and in light of various evidence documents submitted in the administrative litigation, it is reasonable to view that the issue constitutes a false tax invoice which is different from the fact that the false tax invoice was prepared

Article 17 (Scope of Deductible Expenses under Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act)

2014Guhap3792 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA Industry Corporation

a) the Director of the Tax Office

October 31, 2014

November 18, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On October 5, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the business year of 2007 imposed on the Plaintiff, the corporate tax for the business year of 2008, the corporate tax for the second year of 2007, the value-added tax for the second year of 2008, the first year of value-added tax for the year of 2008, the second year of value-added tax for the value-added tax for the second year of 2008, and the second year of 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in visual and precious metal wholesale business, received the tax invoice from BB trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B trade”) at the time of the return of value-added tax during the second taxable period from 1st to 2007, after deducting the said amount from the value-added tax amount, as the input tax amount, and included the said amount in deductible expenses when calculating the corporate tax.

B. From September 5, 2011, to October 14, 2011, the head of thex tax office conducted a tax investigation on BB trade, and the head of thex tax office shall consider the value of supply under the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff (the first OOOO in 2007, the second OOO in 2007, the first OOO in 2008, the second OOOOO in 2008, the second OOOOOO in 2008, the first OOOO in 2009, and the second OOO in 209) as the processed sale and notified the Defendant of the data.

C. Accordingly, on May 11, 2012, the Defendant’s notice of taxation was defective that the Plaintiff should notify the Plaintiff of the corporate tax and value-added tax by deeming it as the processing transaction, and on July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with the Defendant on July 26, 2012. After reviewing the financial data, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant rendered a request for pre-assessment review on September 10, 2012 that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to BB, which was confirmed by financial evidence, for KRW 207, for KRW 00, KRW 2008, KRW 200, KRW 209, KRW 200, KRW 200,O208, KRW 209, KRW 2000, KRW 208, O200, KRW 208, O208, and KRW 209.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the initial disposition of this case on January 3, 2013. After reviewing the financial data, etc. submitted by the Plaintiff, the Seoul Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the first value-added tax OOOOOOO on February 14, 2013 because it was illegal after the application period expired. The Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff on the tax invoice (2OOOO in 2007, 2008, 2008, 2OOOOOOO in 2008, 2009, 1OOOOOOO in 2009, 209, and 2009, after deducting the value-added tax base and tax amount from the output tax amount from the output tax amount, and corrected the actual tax base and tax amount for each taxable period by considering the tax invoice amount received by the Plaintiff from BB trade as the amount of input tax for each taxable year, OOOOOO(208, 2009.

E. Accordingly, around February 2013, the Defendant reduced the amount of KRW 200, KRW 2007, KRW 200, KRW 2008, KRW 200, KRW 2008, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 2008, KRW 200, KRW 2008, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 209, KRW 209, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 209, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 209, Plaintiff, etc., for each of the 208, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 200, KRW 209, KRW 209, KRW200, KRW 209, respectively.

F. On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 2, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Although all of the instant transactions between the Plaintiff and BB transactions are actual transactions, the instant disposition taken by the Defendant deeming the instant transaction as a processing transaction is unlawful as it violates the principle of substantial taxation.

(2) Even though the tax authority determines or revises the tax base and the remaining amount of tax, the Defendant made the instant disposition on the sole basis of the confirmation document prepared by the representative director of the BB Trade, based on the tax invoice, account books, and other evidence. The instant disposition was unlawful since it was not conducted on the basis of the taxation basis.

(3) In the course of the tax investigation on BB trade, the investigating agency failed to hold a hearing on the Plaintiff or DD, did not have an opportunity to present opinions, and the investigation was completed only by the supplementary protocol without confirming the passbook of the CCC by the representative director or the BCC. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the notice of prior notice of taxation without any specific investigation on the Plaintiff or BB trade according to the notice of the x tax secretary document, and the instant disposition was made. The instant disposition is a procedural defect, and even though the tax official faithfully performs his duties according to the trust and good faith, the instant disposition violated the duty of trust and good faith.

B. Determination

(1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

6. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was prepared on a portion of the expenses for the Plaintiff’s actual transaction without actual transaction, and that it was proved to the extent that it was actually costed by the taxpayer. As such, it is necessary to prove that it was easy for the Plaintiff to present books and documents regarding the fact that such expenses were actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 209). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was prepared on a certain amount of the expenses for the Plaintiff’s transaction without actual transaction. As such, it is not necessary to verify that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was prepared on a certain amount of the expenses for the Plaintiff’s submission of the tax invoice to the effect that it was not consistent with the purpose of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice No. 6 and No. 7, and that there was no evidence to prove that it was a violation of the Plaintiff’s tax invoice No. 2, which was issued by the Plaintiff’s prior to transaction.

(2) As to the plaintiff's second and third argument

In light of the following circumstances: ① the Defendant, on May 11, 2012 based on the processed taxation data notified by the xB head of the xB investigation office, sent guidance to submit value-added tax explanatory data; ② the Plaintiff, upon receiving a request for pre-assessment review on July 26, 2012, upon examining some of the transaction as an actual transaction; and ③ the Defendant rendered the initial disposition based on the processed taxation data and financial data notified by the x head of the xB tax office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du2000, supra). If the Plaintiff’s submission of the data and books related to the purchase, the Defendant considered the transaction as an actual transaction; ③ the Defendant did not make the instant disposition based on the corrected taxation data and the confirmation document prepared by the xB representative director of the xB trade, etc. (see, e.g., Article 3(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act).

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

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.