Daegu District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-750 (No. 13, 2014)

Whether a processing tax invoice without real transaction related to software services has been received

In light of the fact that several software development companies have traded tax invoices in a lump sum without real transactions for the purpose of unsatising out the external form, and there is no contract and no evidence of payment, etc., it is proved that it is a false purchase without real transactions.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2014Nu5171 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

May 1, 2015

June 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked: 14,115,680 dated July 1, 2012, 208 against the plaintiff.

Won, 64,118,160 won, January 1, 2009, 13,14,880 won, February 2009, 57,247,940 won, 2009

Each imposition disposition of value-added tax and each disposition of imposition of value-added tax, January 26, 2010, KRW 585,813, and February 2, 2010

Each imposition of value-added tax of KRW 108,491,950 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons why the court should explain the instant case are partially dismissed or added as follows.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

It shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Act.

○ The second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “the defendant is in the proceeding of this case.”

(2) the Corporation shall add.

○ “OOO technology development training center for a stock company” in the third place of the judgment of the first instance court.

A company's Korean Institute of OOO Technology Education and Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Institute of OOO Technology Development").

○ The 6th "Plaintiff" in the fourth decision of the first instance court is regarded as "BB".

○ The fourth statement of the first instance court's decision, fourth statement, fifth statement, fifth statement of the court's decision, attached list, fifth statement of the court's decision

Each "OOOOO venture business" in items 4 and 6 shall be "OOwa venture business".

○ From the 9th day of the first instance judgment to the 10th day of the first instance judgment, the following shall apply:

(c).

[2) We examine whether the issue tax invoice is a false tax invoice, and see the court below's finding

The grounds for the judgment of the first instance court are as follows: "Recognition" and the evidence submitted:

In light of the circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the issue tax invoice (except for the transaction portion between the plaintiff and the Korea-Japan) is a false tax invoice different from the fact that the transaction was received in the absence of real transaction, and contrary thereto, some of the entries of Gap evidence Nos. 96, 98 through 102 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) are difficult to believe, and the entries of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 95, 103 through 118 are insufficient to reverse the recognition, and there is no other counter-proof.

① AB controlled and operated a related company as the representative of the CCC, DD, EE, FF, OOOOO association, and GG, and directly issued and managed issues and tax invoices.

② The purpose of the Plaintiff, etc. seems to have been to facilitate participation in a negotiated contract and competitive bidding, or to create performance for bank loans by increasing the scale of sales and purchase by delivering and receiving issues and tax invoices without real transactions, and by pretending to have many transaction achievements.

③ Through the instant tax investigation, the Defendant recognized the real transaction for the transaction part, such as the provision of website-related services, server management, etc., and confirmed the transaction as a processing transaction only with respect to the revolving transaction between related companies that do not have any real transaction such as ordering places.

④ At the time of the instant tax investigation, BB was a person to the effect that there was no real transaction of the key tax invoices, and the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to submit documents proving the actual transaction details received by the relevant company, etc., including financial data on the transaction details, and the transaction price receipt relation. However, the Plaintiff failed to submit such documents.

⑤ At the time of the Defendant’s tax investigation, MPM’s representative director III, HH, and LL’s representative MO of the Orobon recognized that there was no real transaction. In particular, PEP appears in the criminal trial against the Plaintiff and BB, as a witness, and stated that “The pressure of the Plaintiff and BB to pay the loan from the financial rights is unfolded and sold as a processing transaction because of the fact that the sale of the company was unfolded. It is the same that all low- and BB were made according to the needs of both low-level and BB.” If the O would have received false tax invoices because it is necessary to expand the external form due to pressure on the repayment of the loan of the financial rights, the company B Defendant testified that “The company would have so done may have done but would have done so according to any needs” (Evidence evidence 97).

④ In relation to the sales tax invoice 330,000,000,000 won for the second half of 2008 PPPP, the Plaintiff submitted the details of passbook transactions (Evidence A No. 94) by asserting that the Plaintiff received 327,00,000 won over 17 times from March 25, 2009 to April 16, 2009. However, since the Plaintiff remitted money from the relevant company from March 26, 2009 to April 8, 209 as it is, it is doubtful that the details of transactions would have been disguised as if there were real transactions. Moreover, as if there were real purchases of goods or services in excess of 330,000,000 won, OO operating the above PP was indicted by the Plaintiff for a list of total tax invoices by seller and submitted it to the National Tax Service, the judgment was finalized by the 20130,000,000 won under suspension of execution.

7) On February 1, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted the details of passbook transaction (Evidence A (Evidence 95) by asserting that the Plaintiff received KRW 125,00,000 from the above companies each of the sales tax invoices of KK and GGG from February 1, 2012 to February 17, 2012, with respect to the sales tax invoices of KRW 454,54,55,454, respectively. However, the Plaintiff stated that: (a) the deposit date under the above details of transaction differs from the tax statements for at least two years; (b) the deposit date is in conflict with the amount; (c) the Plaintiff immediately remitted the money transferred from the above companies to the related companies; and (d) HH operatorPP did not have any real transaction of the sales tax invoices at the time of the instant tax investigation.

8) In order to verify the existence of real transactions with related companies, etc. in the trial, the Plaintiff submitted the Plaintiff’s sales ledger, purchase ledger, and sales and purchase statement. However, sales ledger and purchase ledger are merely limited to the documents prepared by the Plaintiff, and sales and purchase statement are not only inconsistent with the issues tax invoice but also are entirely related to the issues tax invoice.

9) On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and BB were indicted on the charge that they falsely reported the issue tax invoice as receiving the tax invoice without being supplied with goods or services, and were sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million, and the BB were sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in one year and six months, respectively.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and each of the instant dispositions is lawful.

2. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall conclude this conclusion.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s appeal is justifiable, it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

partnership.