Cho High Court Decision 2014Do4044 ( November 24, 2014)

It is difficult to conclude that the purchase tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, and otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

It is difficult to readily conclude it as a false tax invoice, such as the fact that the Plaintiff, at the time of the transaction, directly prepares evidentiary documents accompanying the actual transaction, such as a tax invoice, a detailed statement of transaction, a measurement certificate, a written confirmation of measurement, and a certificate of storage, and the receipt of evidentiary documents during the transaction process, by visiting the place of business of the purchaser.

2015Guhap2109 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AA Industry, Inc.

The Director of Gangnam District Office

November 5, 2015

December 24, 2015

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 and value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first term of March 5, 2011 against the Plaintiff on March 5, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in wholesale and retail business of non-ferrous metal (Guide Ri) at OOOO-ro OO-ro, Seoul OOO-gu

corporation, as described below, in the first and second taxable periods of the value-added tax of 2011, the State

Food Company BBB Korea and seven other companies (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase offices of this case") and 'the corporation'.

the sum of the supply value of KRW 9,941,964,00 (hereinafter referred to as “the aggregate of supply value”) from

The tax invoice shall be received and the input tax amount shall be deducted from the output tax amount.

Value-added Tax was reported.

B. However, the defendant is different from the fact that the tax invoice of this case was falsely prepared without real transaction.

On March 5, 2014, according to Articles 16(1), 17(2)2, and 21(1)3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act"), the Plaintiff corrected and notified the amount of value-added tax for the first term of 201 and the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 2000 for the second term of 201 (hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act").

In total, "the disposition of this case" is referred to as "the disposition of this case".

C. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on April 18, 2014, and on July 29, 2014.

Although the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal, it was dismissed on November 24, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff shall not be disadvantaged due to the tax evasion of the purchaser at all times before the commencement of the transaction.

Confirmation of the head of the actual transaction, and evidentiary documents, such as tax invoices and statements of transactions, shall be proved for each transaction.

(1) The Plaintiff and the instant purchaser have been in fact engaged in the same transaction.

The tax invoices are all related to the transactions, and they are consistent with the facts. Nevertheless, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i) The distribution structure of non-ferrous metals is for manufacturing and selling products through the refining process on the highest floor;

The location of the model manufacturer, and the size of each enterprise to collect non-metallic metals below it shall be:

Pursuant to the foregoing, a class is formed in the form of objects, awards, statues, etc. The Plaintiff is closed from a large manufacturing enterprise.

as a large-scale wholesaler that directly sells Dong, including the purchase agency of this case

approximately 20 companies have been supplied with waste Dongs.

2) The Plaintiff’s representative during the period from December 2010 to August 2011

Ma or the intention of delivery of the closed consent shall be confirmed, and a business registration certificate, a copy of the settlement account, a corporate seal imprint;

photographs, lease agreements, resident registration certificates of representatives, etc. of books, certified transcript of corporate register, workplaces and depositorys;

The notice of delivery attached thereto was given and received, and directly visited each place of business to determine whether to operate it actually.

Then, the transaction was commenced after the confirmation.

3) The Plaintiff is a business entity that supplies waste buildings from the purchaser of the instant case whenever such wastes are supplied.

A tax invoice was issued, stating the registration number, name, and value-added number, value-added amount, date of preparation, items, quantity, and price of the goods supplied by the purchaser of the case.

4) In addition, the Plaintiff’s quantity, unit price, supply price, value-added tax provided at each time of transaction.

A transaction statement stating the amount, etc., the registration number of the vehicle transporting the closed Dong, the transaction date, the measurement time, the weight of the vehicle and the waste consent, the measurement certificate and the confirmation certificate prepared by the transport engineer, etc., and the price for supply to the closed Dong was paid by transferring from the Plaintiff's bank account to each settlement account of the purchaser of this case.

5) On the other hand, the purchaser of this case is not only in arrears with a large amount of national taxes, but also in all taxes.

The purchase of this case was also accused of violating the obligation to issue invoice. The purchase of this case was made by the leCC

D Resources, FF resources operated by KimE, HG operated by the HG, corporation

PlaO, J Resources, etc. operated by this Section (hereinafter collectively referred to as "pre-stage purchasing agencies").

Although it was reported that he purchased the waste Dong, the above pre-stage purchasing agencies also have a large number of data.

It is the state of accusation.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-1 through 11, Gap evidence 7-1 through 25, Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Gap evidence 9-1 through 10, Gap evidence 10-1 through 9, Gap evidence 11-2, Gap evidence 12-1 through 9, Gap evidence 13-1 through 11, Gap evidence 14-1 through 10, Gap evidence 15-1 through 6, Gap evidence 16-1 through 4, Gap evidence 17-1 through 4, Gap evidence 18-1 through 9, Gap evidence 19-1 through 4, Gap evidence 20-1 through 12, Gap evidence 21-4, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 17-4, Gap evidence 19-4, Gap evidence 20-1 through 4, Gap evidence 17-4, Gap evidence 1 through 4, each of subparagraphs 7-1 through 4-4, Eul evidence.

D. Determination

Article 1 (1) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is "supply of goods" subject to value-added tax.

Article 6(1) provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods by all contractual or legal reasons." In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-stage transaction tax, "the delivery or transfer of goods" shall include all acts causing the transfer of the right to use and consume the goods, regardless of the actual profit gained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001). In such a case, the issue of whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods as provided for in the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined individually and specifically by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the purpose and circumstance of each transaction, the ownership of profits, and the payment relationship of consideration, etc., of each transaction, and Article 28(1)17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides for the burden of proof of the input tax invoice to be received in the process of the transaction without actual delivery or transfer of the goods (see, 2017 subparag.

In accordance with the above legal principles, the health team, the facts acknowledged earlier, and Gap evidence No. 3;

Gap evidence 22-2 2 The following are known by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry

The circumstances, i.e., (1) In the process of the closed consent transaction, intermediate wholesalers directly collect the closed Dong in each place.

In his own place of business, the intermediate intermediary prizes for the reduction of transportation costs and the convenience of transactions without being paid or lowered.

There are many cases in which the supplier directly carries the waste transport to the supplier and supplies it. Nevertheless, there are many cases in which the supplier directly carries the waste transport;

The Plaintiff visited and confirmed the place of business of the purchaser of this case by him and initiates the next transaction.

(2) The Plaintiff’s tax invoice and transaction name whenever it is delivered from the purchaser of this case.

Document, measurement certificate, measurement certificate, certificate of receipt, etc. accompanied by the actual transaction shall be directly written.

not later than the time of the instant disposition after being issued or traded in the course of the trade;

The evidence shall include a photograph of the vehicle that actually transports the waste Dong and a statement of reduction in accordance with the quality of the waste consent.

information that could not appear if it was not actually traded, such as including the

(4) The price of the closed consent that the Plaintiff transferred to the account is the former part of the purchase agency of this case.

payments made to the purchaser in the future shall be made by the final purchaser through the intermediate seller at the end of the sale.

cash flow, paid to the people, which may sufficiently appear in a normal transaction;

(5) The Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on April 28, 2014, on the premise that the Plaintiff and the purchaser of this case did not have any actual transaction. However, the Defendant issued an accusation against the Plaintiff on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff received any false tax invoice during the second period of 2010 and the first period of 2011, on the ground that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to find additional investigation because most of its location is unknown and multiple times, etc., and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to do so. However, the Defendant issued an administrative litigation (this Court Decision 2013Guhap13907, hereinafter referred to as the “pre-sale case”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the pre-sale goods was no more than that of the pre-sale company’s purchase of the pre-sale goods than that of the pre-sale company.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition by admitting it.

shall be ruled.