Whether it is a processing purchase or a disguised purchase

The burden of proof on the fact that the amount appropriated as the processing cost without real transactions has been actually disbursed for other costs, and that it has not been leaked to others is not proved by the plaintiff, but the tax authority's initial disposition is legitimate.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 16,009,878 of corporate tax for the year 2000 on November 1, 2004 against the Plaintiff and the notification of change in the amount of income for the year 2000 on November 15, 2004 (the Plaintiff expressed that the imposition of KRW 68,032,450 of the earned income tax for the year 2000 from the purport of the claim is the imposition of KRW 68,032,450 of the earned income tax for the year 200, but

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entry of Gap evidence No. 2 and Eul evidence No. 1.

A. In filing a return of corporate tax for the year 2000, the Plaintiff calculated the above KRW 185,000,000 on the account books based on the tax invoice of KRW 185,000 (hereinafter “tax invoice of this case”) received without real transactions from a stock company, etc. (hereinafter “00 million”) as the development cost of intangible fixed assets, and filed a return of corporate tax for the year 2000 by adding the above amount of KRW 37,00,000 corresponding to the depreciation costs of the pertinent year among the above amounts to the inclusion of the depreciation costs in deductible expenses.

B. Afterward, the defendant, knowing that the tax invoice of this case is false, shall be deemed to have been included in the deductible expenses, and on November 1, 2004, the amount of KRW 91,985,680, the corporate tax for the year 200 was corrected and notified to the plaintiff on November 1, 2004 (the defendant corrected the tax amount of KRW 37,000,000,000, which was included in the depreciation costs of the year concerned, as deductible expenses, and the amount of KRW 16,09,878,000, which was included in the deductible expenses, was reduced to KRW 185,000,000, which was included in the gross income, on the ground that the above amount of KRW 185,50,000,000, which was included in the calculation of deductible expenses and the reversion thereof is unclear, and then notified the change in the income amount under the above disposition to the plaintiff on January 15, 2004.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

In an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact. Therefore, the tax authority should bear the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, in the event that a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by a taxpayer was prepared without a real transaction and there are special circumstances, such as where it is proved by the tax authority whether it is an actual cost and where it is proved to the extent that the other party to the tax payment was false, the taxpayer needs to prove that such expenses have been actually disbursed exceptionally (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du16406, Apr. 14, 2006).

In addition, if a corporation appropriates the cost of processing in the account book, the corporation's profit equivalent to the cost of processing shall be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, barring special circumstances, and in this case, the special circumstance that deeming that the profit equivalent to the cost of processing is not leaked out of the company should be proved by the assertion (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du16347 delivered on December 24, 199).

However, as seen earlier, the tax invoice of this case was prepared and delivered falsely between the Plaintiff and 0000 without real transactions, and the value of supply was appropriated as the processing cost on the account books, so that the amount equivalent to the value of supply of the tax invoice of this case was actually disbursed as other expenses, and the burden of proof was not leaked to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, on January 10, 200, entered into a management consulting contract with Japan, 000, and received technical advice fees of KRW 169,081,70,000, which is the worker in charge of the above company, but received the tax invoice of this case on the ground that it did not provide the evidence, and thus, received the tax invoice of this case, at least KRW 169,081,70, which should be included in deductible expenses and should not be recognized as outflow. Thus, the plaintiff argued that the above 169,081,70 should not be included in deductible expenses, and therefore, it is difficult to believe that each statement of evidence No. 3-1 to No. 17-19, which corresponds to the above argument of the plaintiff, is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and therefore the plaintiff'

In addition, the plaintiff's representative director, the plaintiff's representative director, was the majority of the shares issued by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's debt 6.40 million won was the joint and several surety, and the plaintiff's net loss in 2000 million won was more than 500 million won, and since 000 did not cause to leak the plaintiff's assets out of the company, the presumption that the amount equivalent to the value of the tax invoice of this case was leaked out

However, the above presumption cannot be reversed solely on the ground as alleged by the plaintiff. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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