A disposition that deducts input tax amount by false tax invoices (value and retail of materials);

The amount equivalent to the price for supply on the day of transaction was remitted to the bank account of the purchaser, and the non-party company and its representative director were accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the disposition to deduct the input tax amount is illegal.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 4,379,970 on November 1, 2005 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2005 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,970,000 for the first period of November 1, 2005 by the defendant against the plaintiff on November 1, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a representative of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) that runs the wholesale and retail business of dental materials, received each of the supply value of 15,00,001 won on June 26, 2001, the supply value of 11,812,730 won on September 11, 2001, and three copies of the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “each purchase invoice”) with supply value of 11,812,730 won on July 26, 2001, and filed an application for tax deduction as input tax amount at the time of filing a return of value-added tax for the first and second half years on July 26, 201.

B. The Defendant did not deduct each of the above input tax amounts on the ground that each of the purchase tax invoices of this case was false, and on November 1, 2005, revised and imposed value-added tax 2,970,000 for the first period of November 1, 2001 (including additional tax) and value-added tax 4,379,970 for the second period of 2001 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. On February 3, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant on February 3, 2006, but was dismissed on February 22, 2006. On May 24, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for dismissal on June 19, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3-3, Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was actually purchased from the non-party company and received each purchase tax invoice of this case, and thus, each disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the legality of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2001

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 12, the Plaintiff entered the purchase tax invoice of June 26, 2001 as KRW 15,000,001 on the same day from the non-party company. From June 28, 2000 to July 26, 2001, the Plaintiff can be found to have actually supplied dental ingredients to dental clinics and dental laboratories. However, the Plaintiff did not submit any financial data to prove that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the non-party company. Since the date of issuance of the purchase tax invoice of the first quarter is close to the expiration date of the imposition period of value-added tax, the Plaintiff’s purchase tax invoice of KRW 1,296,07 is classified as KRW 15,00,00 on the same day, and the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the above 200,000,000,0000 per annum or 20,000,000 present,00.

(2) As to the legality of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2001

If Gap evidence 3-2 or Gap evidence 6 contains the purport of the whole pleadings, the whole arguments are examined.

In the purchase tax invoice dated 26, 200 on the same day, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 11,386,364 on the same day from the non-party company, and on the purchase tax invoice dated 11, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 11,812,730 on the same day from the non-party company, respectively, and the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 11,812,730 on the same day from the non-party company. The Plaintiff transferred the amount consistent with the price for each transaction day to the bank account of the non-party company, and the non-party company and its representative director, who was accused of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, was subject to the disposition of no suspicion by the non-party company's office of ○○○○ on October 27, 2005.

In full view of the above facts and the fact that the present weight purchased by the Plaintiff from the non-party company coincides with each other with ordinary 1,000g of 1,00, the Plaintiff received each of the above purchase tax invoices from the non-party company and received each of the above purchase tax invoices from the non-party company. Thus, the Defendant deemed that each of the above purchase tax invoices was different from the fact, and thus, it was unlawful to impose the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 4,379,970 for the second period of November 1, 2005.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax of KRW 4,379,970 for the second term portion of KRW 2001 is justified, and the part seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of KRW 2,970,00 for the first term portion of KRW 201 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

○ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under 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 a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

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 taxes 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

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;