Incheon District Court 2008Guu208 ( October 15, 2009)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual purchase of gold-type products was made through processing transactions.

It is insufficient to recognize that a tax invoice is a false tax invoice that does not accompany a real transaction even if there is no data objectively confirmed on the amount paid for the purchase price of goods.

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

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 8,177,140 on the Plaintiff on March 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

It is the same as the disposition.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

The reasons for this part are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

Despite the fact that the Plaintiff purchased gold-type and stolen-type goods, etc. from △△ Pre-A and received them properly, the instant disposition that deemed that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without a real transaction is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) The burden of proving the existence of a taxation requirement fact in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition is on the tax authority. Therefore, the burden of proving that a tax invoice is false, in principle, must be proved with regard to the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by a real transaction based on the direct evidence or all the circumstances. If the defendant has proved to the extent that it is reasonable acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer of the lawsuit claiming the illegality of the defendant's disposition, is also in a position that it is easy to present relevant evidence and materials.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 3, the head of ○○ Tax Office: (i) was notified of a summary order of KRW 77,097,00 for the taxable period from February 29, 2001 to February 2003, on the ground that the purchase declaration amount of KRW 775,039,00 for the materials was generated; and (ii) was charged with a criminal charge under the suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; (iii) from October 29, 2002 to November 29, 2003, △△△ was recognized as the production management order of KRW 70,000 for the crime of issuing a false tax invoice of KRW 68,00,000 for the production management of the materials from ○○ Industrial Complex to 200,000 for the period of two years; and (iv) was established ex officio from 200,2003 to ○○ Industrial Complex.

(3) However, the above evidence and evidence No. 8, No. 9, No. 15-1, and No. 2, and No. 15-1 were 0,000,000 won were 00,000 won were 10,000 won and 200 won were 0.0,000 won were 20,000 won were 0,000 won were 10,000 won were 10,000 won were 0,000 won were 20,000 won were 10,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,00 won were 10,00 won were 0,00 won were 0,00 won were 20,00 won were 0 won were 0,00 won were 10,000 won were 20,00 won were 0 won were 0,000 won were 20,00 won were 20.

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the reason, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the disposition of this case shall be revoked as per Disposition.