Additional 2014-0034

The disposition of non-public restriction on input tax amount is legitimate because matters such as a person who actually supplies are prepared and delivered differently from the fact.

It is difficult to view that a tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from the purchaser is not a false tax invoice on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff supplied goods to his/her client, etc., and in light of the Plaintiff’s period of running the scrap metal wholesale business, the Plaintiff cannot be said to have been negligent in not knowing such circumstances.

2014Gudan1069 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

November 11, 2014

December 13, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2006 to 201, the Plaintiff, who runs the scrap metal wholesale business with the trade name of “○○ Resources”, was issued three copies of tax invoices of KRW 87,65,000 in total from the ○○ Close, the representative of Nonparty ○○○ from February 2, 201 to January 201, and one tax invoice of KRW 16,422,00 in total from the supply value of KRW 16,42,00 in the second half of 201, and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the said tax amount from the input tax amount.

B. The defendant's tax investigation conducted by the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office and the director of ○○ Tax Office

Upon receipt of the notice that ○○○○ was identified as data, each of the above tax invoices received by the Plaintiff constituted a false tax invoice, and thus, the Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount. On September 2, 2013, the Plaintiff revised and notified that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 5,262,420 (including additional tax of KRW 2,314,258), value-added tax of KRW 10,068,190 (including additional tax of KRW 4,250,774), value-added tax of KRW 2,750,560 (including additional tax of KRW 1,108,320) for February 2, 2011.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on April 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff actually purchased and settled the price from ○○ Close and ○○○○○○○○, it is not a processing transaction. The Defendant’s instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) As a personal entrepreneur conducting business on October 29, 2010, sales amounting to KRW 2.125 billion in 2010, KRW 4.18 billion in 201, KRW 4.18 billion in 2011, KRW 68.362 billion in 201, and KRW 3.881 billion in 201, KRW 201, KRW 3.881 billion in 201, but there was no trace of installation of a fraternity at the place of business at the time of the on-site investigation and there was no out-of-site closure. Moreover, ○○○ was immediately withdrawn in cash or remitted to the purchasing place upon receipt of payment from the sales office. The same applies to the Plaintiff’s payment received from the Plaintiff.

(2) After December 31, 201, 000, ○○ Close was disposed of ex officio closure. Nonparty 1, the purchaser of ○○ Close was also accused of Nonparty 1’s resources and Nonparty 1’s industrial company.

○○○ filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office on the criminal facts that the false tax invoice was issued and received, and the crime list contains each of the above tax invoices issued to the Plaintiff.

(3) As an individual entrepreneur conducting business on August 31, 2010, ○○○○ filed a constructive input tax deduction without submitting a purchase tax invoice and filed a sales report of KRW 4.31 billion for February 201, 201, and KRW 3.798 billion for January 201, 201. The supplier stated in the constructive input tax return was confirmed to have no actual transaction with ○○○○○○. At the time of the on-site investigation, most of the suppliers stated in the constructive input tax return were confirmed to have no site or measurement facilities for which the scrap metal was to be entered, and at the time of the on-site investigation, it was found that the place of business was immediately withdrawn in cash or remitted to the purchaser.

(4) Thereafter, on March 21, 2012, ○○○○ was dealt with ex officio discontinuance of business, and Kim○ filed an accusation with the prosecution against the criminal facts that issued and received a false tax invoice, and the said tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff is also included in the list of crimes.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 through 9 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

C. Determination

(1) Generally, the burden of proof of the facts requiring taxation is a taxable person, but where it is revealed that the facts can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, the other party is liable to prove his/her opposite position, such as that the pertinent facts at issue are inappropriate for applying the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du23378, Aug. 17, 2012).

(2) According to the above facts, the above facts are as follows: ① ○○ Close and ○○○○ is the data that existed for the receipt and issuance of a tax invoice without actually purchasing or selling, and each of the above tax invoices received by the Plaintiff is included in the accused criminal facts; ② ○○○○ and ○○○○○○ received most of the payments that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff was immediately withdrawn or transferred to the purchaser; ③ It is insufficient to recognize that the Dong, which was supplied to the Plaintiff solely based on the descriptions described in Articles 8, 10, 13, 15, and 17, was the actual ○○○○ and the actual ○○○○. In full view of these circumstances, each of the above tax invoices can sufficiently be deemed as having been prepared and delivered differently from the facts, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s actual ○○○○○ and the actual ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ -○ -○ -○ -○ -○ - through a wholesale business.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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