Whether or not false tax invoices have been received at the time of purchase

The fact that there is a presumption that the investigation is a false tax invoice on the certificate of the completion of investigation and there is no specific evidence to support the falsity, and the fact that the relevant transaction partner is suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act is insufficient to regard it as a false tax invoice.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,316,470 in excess of KRW 1,316,470 in the disposition of imposition of KRW 8,048,210 in the business year 2002, which the Plaintiff designated as the second place of tax payment of ○ precious metal Co., Ltd. on March 17, 2005, in excess of KRW 13,481,180 in the disposition of imposition of KRW 36,853,490 in the year 202, in excess of KRW 34,567,380 in the disposition of imposition of KRW 196,38,490 in the year 202, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 34,567,380 in the second year value-added

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/20 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and 19/20 by the defendant, respectively.

The Defendant, on March 17, 2005, designated the Plaintiff as the secondary taxpayer for the business year 2002, revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 8,048,210, value-added tax for the first time in 2002, KRW 36,853,490, value-added tax for the second time in 2002, KRW 34,567,380, and value-added tax for the second time in 2003, KRW 196,38,490 for the first time in 203.

1. Details of disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was an oligopolistic shareholder with an investment share of 51% of 00 precious Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”) with an office located in ○○○○○-2 ○○○ Office, Seoul, ○○○○○○-2 ○○ Office 902 during the first period of 2002 and 203.

B. On January 3, 2005, the Defendant imposed KRW 15,780,820 on the non-party company's KRW 72,261,750 in 2002, and KRW 67,779,789,180 in 2002, and KRW 385,75,490 in the value-added tax for February 2002, on the other hand, on the grounds that the non-party company received false tax invoices between three purchasing places and two selling places (hereinafter "the instant tax invoices") and filed and paid the value-added tax and corporate tax accordingly.

Taxation Period

Details of receipt of tax invoices

Purchase Agency

Purchase

Value of supply (cost)

Sales Office

Purchase

Value of supply (cost)

1, 2002

○ Mail Party

3

194,611,000

○○ Alley system (State)

1

262,400,000

(m)○○ juice

1

129,066,600

2, 2002

(m)○○ electric power

3

100,020,000

(m)○○ Light Korea

3

397,575,600

1, 2003

(m)○○ Light Korea

23

2,815,621,000

C. On March 17, 2005, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff as the secondary tax obligor on March 17, 2005, and issued each tax imposition disposition written in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”) by calculating the amount corresponding to the Plaintiff’s equity shares out of the tax amount of the Nonparty Company.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, 7, 8, and 6-1-4, and 9-7

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant tax invoice was actually traded between the non-party company and the purchaser and the seller, it does not mean that the instant tax invoice is different from the facts. Even if the purchase tax invoice in the instant tax invoice is false, the non-party company did not know such fact, and was not at fault. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Determination as to the part of purchase tax invoices and sales tax invoices on the ○○○ Party (hereinafter “stock company” among the name of the company is omitted) from ○○△△△ (hereinafter “stock company”)

In full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement No. 10-6 and No. 13-7 of the evidence No. 10-1 to No. 13-7, 002, Red ○○○○ was established as the representative director on Feb. 18, 2002 for the purpose of wholesale business on Oct. 2, 2003. According to the report of value-added tax of ○○ ju-ri, the purchase of KRW 9.4 million and the sale of KRW 9.6 million were conducted on Oct. 1, 2002. Red ○○-type is a precious metal technician, and it is difficult to view that ○○ 200 million had been actually operated on a 3-year basis without reporting the fact that ○○ 200,000 won of the above sales slip was purchased on a new 3-year basis without reporting the fact that ○ 200,000 won of the above sales slip was purchased on a new 3-year basis.

According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff’s supply value of KRW 129,066,60,600, the total supply value of KRW 194,61,00,000 delivered to ○○○○○ in the first period of 2002, constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts, the Defendant’s denial of input tax deduction related to each of the above tax invoices, and correction and imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax are legitimate.

C. Determination on the part of ○○ Alley system, purchase tax invoices from ○○ Light Korea, and sales tax invoices on ○ Oil Plastics

The evidence Nos. 6-1 to 4, 11-5, 12-1 to 12-14 of the evidence Nos. 6-1 to 6-1, 14-1 to 14-14 is an investigation of the non-party company and each of the above customers prepared by a tax official. In light of the contents, only the opinion of the investigator that the transaction is judged to be a disguised purchase or sale between the non-party company and the above customers, or that the transaction is a disguised purchase or sale between the non-party company and the above customers without a direct investigation of the transaction relations with the non-party company, and it is merely a connotation that the company received a false tax invoice between the other parties without real transaction, and there is no specific basis to support the false transaction under the tax invoice of this case. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 38-1, 2, and 43-1 to 00-1, 2, and 43-14-14 of the evidence, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the above evidence was issued to the non-party Korea company.

Therefore, the part that the Defendant denied input tax deduction related to each of the above tax invoices and corrected and imposed the value-added tax and corporate tax is unlawful.

(d) The calculation of a legitimate tax amount;

Therefore, the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2002 and the first period of 2003 among the dispositions of this case shall be revoked in its entirety since there is no grounds for correction of the tax base and tax amount. The imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2002 and the corporate tax for the 2002 business year shall be revoked only for the portion exceeding the legitimate tax amount calculated as follows:

(1) Value-added tax for 1 year 2002

(A) the denied input tax deduction amount

An input tax amount of KRW 129,06,600,000,000 for supply value from ○○ tax invoice deemed to be a purchase by false tax invoice 12,906,660

(B) Additional tax

(2) The amount equivalent to 2/100 of the aggregate of the supply values on purchase tax invoices and sales tax invoices from ○ Geumju, a false tax invoice, and on sales tax invoices from ○○○○, a false tax invoice.

(3) The amount of additional tax on negligent tax returns shall be equivalent to 10/100 of the amount deducted from the input tax amount under a false tax invoice.

An additional tax for unfaithful payment shall be paid for the number of days from July 26, 2002 to January 3, 2005, which is the day following the due date for payment under a false tax invoice, multiplied by 893 days and 5/1,000 of the interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(C) Therefore, the sum of value-added taxes is KRW 26,43,690 in total, either one to half of the value-added taxes, and the amount is divided into 13,481,180 in proportion to the Plaintiff’s equity share (51%).

(2) Corporate tax for the 2002 business year

The additional tax to be paid by the non-party company pursuant to Articles 76(5) and 116(2)2 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be imposed only on the portion of receiving false purchase tax invoices from the ○ Geumju. As such, the value of supply equivalent to 2,581,330 won (beer less than 10 won) equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply of 129,06,600 won is 1,316,470 won (beer less than 10 won).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,316,470 in the imposition of KRW 8,048,210 in the business year of 202, the amount exceeding KRW 13,481,853,490 in the imposition of KRW 13,481,480 in the imposition of KRW 36,853,490 in the first-year value-added tax in 2002, the imposition of KRW 34,567,380 in the second-year value-added tax in 2002, and the imposition of KRW 196,38,490 in the first-year value-added tax in the business year