Seoul High Court 2008Nu11695 ( December 10, 2008)

propriety of a disposition of non-deduction of the input tax amount received from the materials related to gold bullion;

Although it is alleged that the company which has been confirmed and accused as data actually purchased now from the company, there is no presentation of reliable documentary evidence, so this disposition as a processing transaction is legitimate.

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

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, but it is clear that the assertion on the grounds of appeal by the appellant constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal and therefore, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

[Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu11695 ( December 10, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 18,861,040 for the first period of 2003 against the plaintiff on April 1, 2006.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this case is that '8,254,00 won' was deleted from May 30, 2003 to 88,254,000 won among the judgment of the court of first instance, '8,254,000 won', '8,2564,000 won for 11', '8,254,000 for 6th 8th 'the number of witnesses', 'the number of witnesses, 'the number of witnesses of the court of first instance', 'the number of witnesses of the court of first instance, 'the number of witnesses of the court of first instance, 'the number of witnesses, 'the number of witnesses of the court of first instance', 'the number of 9th 'the tax invoices of this case' was changed to 'the tax invoices of the court of first instance on March 25, 2003 and June 10, 2003.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap34255 ( April 16, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 18,861,040 for the first term portion of the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2006 (the date of the disposition written in the complaint seems to be a clerical error) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, or there is no dispute between the parties, or all the statements in Gap evidence 1, 3, and Eul evidence 1.

A. The Plaintiff was engaged in the manufacturing and processing business of the ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○.

나. 원고는 퀸○○○○ 주식회사(변경전 상호 : 롯○○○ 주식회사, 이하 '퀸○○○'라고 한다)로부터, 발행일 '2003. 3.25.', 공급가액 12,933,330원(부가가치세 포함하면 14,226,663원)의 세금계산서 1매, 발행일 '2003. 5.30.', 공급가액 72,727,242원(부가가치세 포함하면 79,999,966원)의 세금계산서 1매 및 발행일 '2003. 6.10.', 공급가액 40,560,000원(부가가치세 포함하면 44,616,000원)의 세금계산서 1매(이하 위3매의 세금계산서를 합하여 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라고 한다)를 교부받고, 이 사건 각 세금계산서에 따른 매입세액을 공제하여 부가가치세를 신고하였다.

다. 피고는 2006. 4. 1. 원고가 퀸○○○○로부터 수취한 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 실물거래 없는 가공의 세금계산서라는 이유로 위 공급가액 합계 126,220,000원(=12,933,330원 + 72,727,242원 + 40,560,000원, 1,000원 미만 버림)에 대한 매입세액을 불공제하여 산정한 2003년 제1기분 부가가치세 18,861,040원(가산세 포함)을 경정 ・ 고지하였다(이하 위 부가가치세 경정 ・ 고지를 '이 사건 부과처분'이라고 한다).

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since each of the tax invoices received by the Plaintiff was prepared according to the actual transaction, the disposition of this case, which is based on the premise that all of the tax invoices of this case are the processing transaction, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(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;

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 4-1, 4-5, 5-1, 2, 3, and 6, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 발행한 퀸○○○○의 명의상 대표이사는 조○○이었으나 실제운영자는 조○○였는데, 조○○는 큄○○○○ 뿐만 아니라 ○도 ・ 소매업을 영위하는 주식회사 남○○○(이하 '남○○○'이라고 한다), 주식회사 남○○○○○○(이하 '남○○○○○○'이라고 한다), 광○○○ 주식회사(이하 '광○○○'이라고 한다)를 실제로 운영하였다.

(2) 조○○는 쌍○○○, 남○○○○○○, 퀸○○○○가 실물거래 없이 매입처인 주식회사 케이○○○와 삼성○○○주식회사로부터 가공의 매입세금계산서를 교부받고, 매출거래처인 원고 및 주식회사 씨비○○, 주식회사 엘디○○, 주식회사 골드○○○ 등에게 가공의 매출세금계산서를 교부하였다는 혐의로 ○○세무서로부터 검찰에 고발되어 ○○○○지방검찰청에서 조사를 받게 되었는데, 검찰 조사 당시 문제가 된 세금계산서 중 일부는 실물거래라고 진술하였고, 조세범처벌법위반 등으로 기소되어 ○○○○지방법원 2004고합368, 2005고합2(병합),42(병합),49(병합)호로 재판을 받을 때에는 수수한 매입 ・ 매출세금계산서 중 일부는 실물거래라고 진술하면서 다만, 이를 특정하기 어려우니 양형조건으로 참작하여 달라고 진술하였으며, ○○○○지방법원은 2005.12.15. 조○○에 대하여 조세범처벌법위반(허위세금계산서 수수)에 대하여는 모두 유죄판결을 선고하였다.

(3) On October 18, 2006, 2006No62 (Separation), the appellate court stated that the purchasing and trading partner of the tax invoice was released as bail and the sales trader of the tax invoice was actually engaged in the transaction and received the purchase and sales tax invoice. On October 18, 2006, the ○○ High Court rendered a judgment of innocence as to the part of the tax invoice, including the receipt of the tax invoice, and the remaining parts of the tax invoice, which became final and conclusive on July 26, 2007 (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6816, Oct. 27, 2007).

(4) 원고는 이 사건 각 세금계산서의 발행일인 2003. 3.25. 14,226,240원, 2003. 5.30. 80,000,000원, 2003. 6.10. 44,616,000원을 퀸○○○○의 은행계좌로 각 이체하였다.

(5) 2003년도 제1기 동안 ○○○의 매입신고금액은 188,223,000원(퀸○○○○ 3매 126,220,000원, 광○○○ 1매 38,800,000원), 매출신고금액은 206,452,000원(대우○○○○주식회사 40매 882,564,000원 등)이다.

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the circumstances. However, if the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that it is consistent with his/her own assertion in view of the position in which it is easy to present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant's disposition, by asserting that the tax invoice is not false.

In addition, even if an administrative trial is not bound by the fact-finding in a criminal trial, the facts that have already been recognized as the crime of criminal judgment based on the same factual basis are flexible evidence. Therefore, in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial, the facts inconsistent with this cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances where it is deemed difficult to adopt a criminal trial based on other evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276, Sep. 30, 197; 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199).

(2) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 본 바와 같이 퀸○○○○가 원고에게 실물거래 없이 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 발행하였다는 사실은 관련 형사사건의 유죄판결로서 확정되었고, 원고의 주장에 부합하는 듯한 갑4호증의 각 기재 및 증인 조○○, 공○○의 각 증언은 위 유죄확정판결에 비추어 믿기 어려우며, 원고가 이 사건 각 세금계산서의 발행일에 그 거래대금을 퀸○○○○의 은행계좌로 각 이체하였고 2003년도 제1기 동안 금○○의 매입신고금액이 매출신고금액에 거의 육박한다는 사정은 퀸○○○○와 가공거래를 한 업체들은 실제 거래로 위장하기 위해 그 대금을 무통장 입금 등의 방법으로 송금한 다음 수수료를 공제한 나머지 대금을 현금으로 반환받는 등의 방법으로 거래를 하여 왔던 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 위 형사판결의 사실판단을 배척하고 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 거래가 실물거래라고 인정할 만한 자료로 삼기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

(3) Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that each of the instant tax invoices was received without real transactions, and the Defendant’s instant disposition of imposition 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.