The legitimacy of the assertion that the gold bullion actually purchased the disposition by processing transaction

It is reasonable to view that the real transaction is the false tax invoice which leads to the actual transaction rather than the actual purchase and delivery while remitting the purchase price, and some of the testimony that the real transaction has existed is difficult to believe it in light of the above circumstances.

Article 27 of the Income Tax Act

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act

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

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

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 98,305 on January 9, 2007 against the Plaintiff and KRW 19,065,575 on global income for the year 2001 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff engaged in sales business of precious metals, etc. from February 26, 2001 to around September 5, 2006, and changed its category of business into cosmetics retail business around 2006. The Plaintiff changed its trade name to juice ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “juice ○○○”) in the name of juice ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”).

B. During the second taxable period from 2001 to 2002, the Plaintiff received five tax invoices equivalent to 60,163,180 won (hereinafter “tax invoices”) in total of the supply values as follows, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount on the supply value.

Table Omission of the Table

C. As to this, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was not consistent with the actual transaction and excluded the relevant input tax amount, and on January 9, 2007, the Defendant respectively corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 98,305, global income tax for the year 2001, including each additional tax, and KRW 19,065,575, global income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4 through 6, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff notified ○○ △△△ by itself of the calls of its purchase at present, and then transferred the price at present to the Busan ○○○○○○○ Branch of the National Agricultural Cooperative, which is an precious metal specialized in the precious metal located in Busan ○○○○○○○○○ (representative) by transfer of a bank account-free passbook in the bank account of the ○○○○○○○ branch, and then has been delivered from ○○○○○○○○○, which is currently ordered through ○○○○○○, which is currently being delivered to ○○○○○○○, and has been actually purchased at present by means of delivery of the price from ○○○○○○, and has been deposited in full. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff received

(b) Related statutes;

Article 27 of the Income Tax Act

Article 80 of the Income Tax Act

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A company established by ○○○○○ Head of a tax office as KRW 50 million in capital, which purchased a total of KRW 214,036,000 from ○○○○○○○ Head of a tax office, and reported that ○○○○○○○○ Head of a tax office, etc. sold its total of KRW 214,036,00,000 from ○○○○○○○ Head of a tax office to 21 companies. The above companies were acknowledged as data as a result of the investigation by the competent tax office. The amount of ○○○ Head of a tax office purchased ○○○○ Head of a tax office from 2003,9.9% (214,018,000,000) of the total amount of ○○○ Head of a tax office’s 20,000,000,000 from 20,000,000 from 30,000).

The net income of the above company from 2001 to 2003 was only KRW 160 million.

(2) The Plaintiff’s name deposited KRW 13,759,00 on March 15, 2002 at the Busan ○○dong Branch, KRW 14,293,00 on April 30, 200, KRW 14,212,00 on May 31, 2002, KRW 13,412,00 on the deposit account of the bank account of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ through the deposit without passbook, and the Plaintiff received the corresponding tax invoice (However, the deposit details related to the tax invoice No. 1 on the instant tax invoice do not appear on the record).

(3) As above, at the time of receiving a passbook without passbook as the price for purchase, I used the branch of ○○○○○ Dong, which is a precious metal professional store in Busan ○○○○-dong, for the purpose of using the branch of ○○○○○○-dong, which was traded by ○○○○-dong, and the receipt without passbook was also made by ○○-dong. This ○○-do, in addition to the Plaintiff, prepares a certificate of deposit without passbook, in the form of remitting the purchase price to ○○-dong ○○○-dong (representative title ○), jum (representative title ○), jum (representative title ○), jum-○ (representative title ○), and jum (representative title ○).

(4) In addition, while operating ○○○○, ○○○○○○, lent the name of ○○○○○, to open and use an account for the branch of ○○○○○○○○, the ○○○○○○○○○, which was transferred KRW 20,152,00 from ○○○ on December 29, 201 to the account under the name of ○○○○○, and the details of the withdrawal from the account under the name of ○○○ on the date on which the Plaintiff paid the purchase amount are as follows.

Omission of the Table

(5) From the first half of 2001 to the second half of 2003, the details of the receipt of the purchase tax invoice pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Return are as follows.

Table Omission of the Table

(6)The plaintiff's declaration and the analysis of the gross profit rate from the sale following the correction of the tax invoice of this case are as follows (united ,00 won):

Table Omission of the Table

(7) The Plaintiff does not have a direct transaction with the ○○○ △△△△, etc. for the purpose of receiving the present from the ○○○ ice.

(8) On the other hand, at the present when this ○○○△△△ was delivered from this e-mail, the Defendant received a disposition of correction or notification of value-added tax on the ground that the relevant purchase tax invoice was false tax invoice, and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the said disposition of correction or notification of value-added tax, but the judgment was rendered against the first instance court (Seoul District Court 2007Guhap4927), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it did not appeal the said

[Based on recognition] Evidence A 1-2, evidence A-2, evidence A-4 through 6-1 to 4, evidence A-8-1, evidence A-9, evidence A-1 to 69, evidence A-12-1 to 61, evidence A-13-1 to 61, evidence B-1-2, evidence B-2 through 6, evidence B-9, evidence B-1 to 10-25, evidence B-1 to 12-15, part of evidence A-2 to 12-15, the purport of the whole pleadings (excluding the part not trusted under the following), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of the illegality of taxation disposition, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact. Therefore, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income, but as necessary expenses are located within the control area of the taxpayer, it is difficult for the tax authority to prove such burden. Thus, in a reasonable case where it is difficult for the tax authority to prove the taxpayer by taking into account the difficulty of proof or the equity between the parties, the necessity of proof must be returned to the taxpayer. Therefore, if a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer is proved to have been prepared without a real transaction by the defendant who is the tax authority, and it is disputed whether it is an actual cost, and if the taxpayer and the other party to the payment have been proved to have been false, the purpose of the cost claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment should be proved to have been actually paid, it is difficult for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the book keeping and evidence (see, etc.).

(1) In light of the above legal principles, although ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue from the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue, the Plaintiff’s sales revenue of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue from the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.