False Tax Invoice

It is true that the first endorsement of the tax invoice and the bill is the first endorsement of the bill, and that the deposit slip is not inconsistent with each other.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 15,549,010 against the Plaintiff on October 31, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 16, 1998, the Plaintiff is an entrepreneur who runs the sales business of the mother and cooling machine used in a water tank with the trade name of “AAA AA, AA, 111-10 to “BB World”.

B. The Plaintiff received ten copies of the tax invoice of KRW 109,885,000 (hereinafter “the tax invoice of this case”) from Dschoolers (representative SongCC and business operator number 607-10-11442) in the first taxable period of the value added tax in 2006, and declared the value added tax, and deducted it as the input tax amount.

C. Around September 2007, the director of the tax office of Leecheon filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's Office as a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and notified the Defendant of taxation data.

D. Accordingly, on October 14, 2008, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and deducted the purchase tax amount accordingly, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 171,549,010 on October 14, 2006 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 7, Eul 1, 2, 4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice through actual transactions. In other words, the Plaintiff purchased a scarb and cooling machine, which is a part of the scarb and paid the purchase price in bills. However, even though the Plaintiff had changed from time to time, the Plaintiff’s business operator (individual, corporation) and the trade name of the company involved in the transaction were changed, but only the supplier received the tax invoice stated in the scarbr and reported it.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which did not deduct the purchase tax amount by deeming that the tax invoice of this case received from the DDD DDr is false, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice was received through the processing transaction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap2-7, Eul 2-5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

A) On February 19, 2002, Dschooller (representative Song-CC) initially started the business in the name of FFdong 103-5, FFdong 103-5, Busan, and changed its business name to FEE Distribution, on May 2, 2006, the location of the place of business was changed to that of FFdong 103-5, and the business was transferred from 420-32 to 67, Hanam-si, Busan, the first day of Busan, the 420-32, and the trade name on May 4, 2006 was changed to 'DD Schooller'. However, the tax invoice No. 1-7 of Table 1 is not at the time of preparation, but at the place of business and the trade name after the date of entry.

B) It is not common to pay the price prior to the purchase of the goods because the category of Dhyler's business is not the manufacturing business but the wholesale business. The first transaction date under the tax invoice of this case is January 5, 2006 (No. 1 per annum). On the contrary, the payment using the bill is included in this four copies or more as shown in Table 2 No. 1-4, and the relevant deposit sheet is also prepared as a settlement for the purchase of goods, not advance payment.

C) The supplier of the instant tax invoice and the first endorsement of the bill, which is not in accord with each other under the deposit slip.

D) Of the details of payment claimed by the Plaintiff, the bills No. 10, 11 No. 2, No. 2, and 11 were not finally settled.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice was received as an actual transaction, in light of the following circumstances, the entrepreneur who supplied the Plaintiff with the actual goods and the supplier under the instant tax invoice are different, and thus, the instant tax invoice constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact.

A) The Plaintiff, in fact, was supplied with goods from the international freezing industry and Dschoolr operated by SouthG, and asserted that the instant tax invoice was received from the same person.

B) However, all of the suppliers of the instant tax invoice are described as DDD Rers CC.

In such cases, the Plaintiff’s failure to know that the Plaintiff is different from the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice, and the Plaintiff’s failure to know that the Plaintiff was not negligent. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is not proven.

3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is "unlawful tax invoice" is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.