An input tax invoice which is not true but false;

Where all or any of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the entries on the list of total tax invoices by seller are entered differently from the fact, the input tax amount for the relevant portion and the purchase tax invoice issued with such item where the necessary entries under Article 16 (1) are entered differently from the fact, the input tax

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Suwon District Court 2015Guhap1374 ( October 06, 2015)

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

September 15, 2015

October 6, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part that the Defendant sought revocation of each disposition of imposition of KRW 5,717,594 for the second period portion of KRW 2,216,00 for the Plaintiff on July 16, 2010, value-added tax for the second period of KRW 7,408,80 for the second period of KRW 2,00 for the Plaintiff on July 16, 2014, and value-added tax for the second period of KRW 7,805 for the second period of

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 11,863,702 (referred to as “11,863,720 won” listed in the complaint) for the first term portion of the year 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 16, 2014, the imposition of KRW 4,66,186, value-added tax for the first term portion of the year 2010, KRW 216,00, value-added tax for the second term portion of the year 2010, KRW 7,408,805, and KRW 5,717,594 for the second term portion of the year 201, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff is a business entity engaging in the manufacturing and wholesale business of sports equipment under the trade name of 506 "AA Athletic Facilities Corporation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Mutual Aid Project Chairperson") from the early 506 Sinnam-si to the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Mutual Aid Project Chairperson") and engaging in sports equipment and wholesale and retail business at the same place (hereinafter referred to as the "Receiving Business Place").

B. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice from the business partners from 2009 to 2011 in the trade name and business registration number of the receiving place of business (hereinafter “the purchase tax invoice of this case”). However, after deducting the pertinent input tax amount from the input tax amount of the mutual aid business operator, the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the input tax amount of the mutual aid business operator, which is not the receiving place of business.

C. Accordingly, on July 16, 2014, the Defendant denied the above input tax deduction and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 11,863,702, value-added tax for the first term portion for the year 2009, KRW 4,666,186, value-added tax for the first term portion for the year 2010, KRW 216,000, and value-added tax for the second term portion for the year 201, KRW 7,408,805 for the second term portion for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), while the Defendant issued a notice of imposition of value-added tax for the first term portion for the year 209 and the first term portion for the year 2010 among each taxation dispositions, on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted the total value-added tax amount for the Korea Disaster Relief Association, which is a business partner, in the second term of the year 2011, from the global income tax base for the Plaintiff.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 14, 2014, but was dismissed on March 9, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant asserts that the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of each disposition of taxation other than the instant disposition, namely, the second period portion in 2010, each of the second period in 2011, and global income tax for 2011, is unlawful without going through the previous trial procedure.

B. Article 55(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides, “Any person whose rights or interests are infringed by this Act or any other disposition under tax-related Acts, which is illegal or unreasonable, or because he/she has failed to undergo a necessary disposition, may request the cancellation or modification of such disposition or request a necessary disposition.” Article 56(2) of the same Act provides, “Any administrative litigation against an illegal disposition as prescribed in Article 55 shall not be filed without going through a request for evaluation or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon.” In addition, according to Articles 61(1) and 68(1) of the same Act, the above request for evaluation or adjudgment shall be filed within 90 days after the date (if a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt) on which the relevant disposition is known. It is interpreted that an administrative litigation against a disposition of national taxes should go through the examination or adjudication procedure as a pre-determination requirement, and any administrative litigation instituted without going through such pre-trial procedure is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu304, Jul. 23, 1985).

Based on the above legal principles, the health care unit, the defendant on July 16, 2014 against the plaintiff on this case.

According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments of Gap's 1,863,702 value-added tax for the first term of 209, value-added tax for the first term of 2010, value-added tax 4,66,186, value-added tax for the second term of 2010, value-added tax for the second term of 2010, value-added tax for the second term of 7,408,805, global income tax for the second term of 2011, and global income tax for the year 5,717,594, as seen above, the following facts are as follows: The plaintiff did not impose taxes for the second term of 2010, value-added tax for the second term of 2010, value-added tax for the second term of 2010, for each of the two years and 2010, for each of the above dispositions for the second term of 201, and each of the above dispositions for the second term of 2010.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since both the receiving workplace and the receiving workplace fall under a business place operated by the Plaintiff at the same place, the input tax amount on the purchase tax invoice of this case prepared and issued in the name of the receiving workplace shall also be deemed as subject to the deduction of the input tax amount by the head of the mutual aid business. Nevertheless, the Defendant, a tax official belonging to the Defendant, in relation to the tax investigation, calculated the value-added tax base by dividing the received workplace and the mutual aid business place into a separate business place, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the basis of this case by abusing his authority. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful because the tax official’s abuse of authority

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same), value-added tax shall be reported and paid at each workplace (Article 4(1)); and an entrepreneur shall register with the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 20 days from the date of commencing the business as prescribed by Presidential Decree for each workplace (main sentence of Article 5(1)); and where an entrepreneur registered as a tax obligor supplies goods or services, he/she shall issue a tax invoice stating the registration number and name of the entrepreneur who receives the supply; (2) the registration number and name of the supplier; (3) the supply price and value-added tax; (4) the date of preparation, etc. of the list of total tax invoices by customer; and (2) pursuant to Article 17(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, where all or some of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction partner in the relevant part of the list of total tax invoices by seller are differently entered from the fact, if the necessary entry under Article 16(2).

2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice from the business partners from 2009 to 201 in the trade name and business registration number of the receiving place of business. However, the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax by deducting the said input tax amount from the input tax amount of the mutual aid place, which is not the receiving place of business, as seen earlier. The following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the receipt place of business registration registration certificate includes ① the opening date of the business, ② the main name of the business, ‘do retail', and health organization; ② the main name of the mutual aid place of business is the input tax amount separate from the initial place of business, under the premise that the business owner receives the input tax amount by distinguishing the input tax amount of the mutual aid place of business from the initial place of business, ② the main name of the business owner is different from the input tax amount of the input tax amount, ② the main business owner is not the subject of the return and payment of the input tax amount by the type of the business place.

Therefore, the plaintiff is issued in the name of the receiving place of business if considered as the basis of the mutual aid business.

If the input tax amount on the purchase tax invoice of this case is deducted as the input tax amount of the mutual aid business operator, and the value-added tax is declared on the purchase tax invoice issued "where all or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties are entered differently from the fact" or "where the necessary entry items under Article 16 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act are entered differently from the fact", such input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount under Article 17 (2) of the former

3) Therefore, when the defendant calculates the value-added tax amount of the mutual aid business, the purchase tax amount of this case

In 209, the disposition of this case to rectify each increase in the input tax amount of KRW 11,863,702, and value-added tax of KRW 4,66,186 for the first period of 2010 is lawful.

4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s return to the Defendant’s tax official to whom the instant disposition was rejected.

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the instant disposition cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground of such assertion.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of each disposition of imposition of the second term of 2010, the second term of 2011, and the second term of 2011 is unlawful, and thus, it is dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.