Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap4161 Decided June 21, 201

National Tax Service Review Corporation 2008-0059 (Law No. 11, 2009)

Dispositions imposed on the basis of the processing tax invoice prepared without a real transaction is legitimate

The Plaintiff’s assertion that a household equivalent to the value of supply of a tax invoice actually purchased is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that only the tax invoice was issued by another transaction party, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge otherwise, a disposition imposed on the Plaintiff by deeming it a processing tax invoice prepared without a real

2011Nu24219 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Guhap4161 Decided June 21, 201

October 11, 2012

October 25, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax for the business year of 2002 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2008 (the recorded tax amount seems to include penalty tax) shall be revoked (the recorded tax amount shall be deemed to include penalty tax).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the appellate trial, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice was prepared in falsity without actual transactions is unlawful, even though it can be presumed that there was actual transaction equivalent to the amount of the instant tax invoice, considering the Plaintiff’s household purchase, sales structure, and the Plaintiff’s presumed value added ratio, etc.

Therefore, if a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely without a real transaction by the tax authority without a real transaction, and it is disputed whether the expenses are actual costs and the other party to the payment of the expenses claimed by a taxpayer has been proved to the extent that it is reasonable for the taxpayer to do so, the taxpayer who is easy to present all the materials, such as the account book keeping and evidence, should prove that such expenses have been actually paid (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 9.4.)

28. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du28076, supra)

However, in light of the above legal principles, it is necessary to prove that the Plaintiff actually paid expenses equivalent to the supply value of the instant tax invoice in accordance with the above legal principles and that there is no specific account book on sales and purchase based on the instant tax invoice as cited by the judgment of the first instance court and that the Plaintiff recognized that there is no specific account book on sales and purchase based on the instant tax invoice, even if considering all of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the circumstances asserted additionally by this court, the Plaintiff actually purchased the household equivalent to the supply value of the instant tax invoice from the “O corporation” and only received only the instant tax invoice from the “YYNAC corporation,” which is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the first instance judgment that the instant disposition is lawful on the ground that the instant tax invoice was deemed to be a processing tax invoice prepared without a real transaction is justifiable. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.