Cho High Court Decision 2009west1483 (Law No. 9.30, 2009)

Whether it constitutes a processing tax invoice related to the purchase of gold bullion;

In the process of undergoing a tax investigation in relation to the purchase of gold bullion, the purchase tax invoice specifically led to the processing transaction, and the customer files an accusation against the suspicion of issuing the processing tax invoice, etc., which constitutes a transaction without actual transactions.

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

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant Jongro Tax Office shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant main office is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of global income tax of KRW 318,428,340 on September 1, 2008 by the head of Seodaemun Tax Office against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2008 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 82,217,50 on April 2, 2007 by the head of Seodaemun Tax Office against the Plaintiff shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff, as the representative of Gold Industries BB (date and time of opening business: November 1, 2001) located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 194 Changnam-dong 194, the Plaintiff reported global income tax for 2004 and the value added tax for 2 years 2004, on the basis of the purchase tax invoice 28 copies (hereinafter “purchase tax invoice of this case”) of the total amount of 571,312,000 won received from the AAAB (hereinafter “AAB”), and filed each return of global income tax and value added tax for 571,312,000 won on the basis of the purchase tax invoice 28 copies (hereinafter “purchase tax invoice of this case”).

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the purchase tax invoice of this case as the purchase tax invoice purchased from data, and notified the Defendants of the taxation data on the basis of the above taxation data. On April 2, 2007, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) deducted the purchase tax amount in the purchase tax invoice of this case on April 2, 2007; and (b) issued a correction and notification of the value-added tax of 82,217,500 won on February 2, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "additional disposition of this case"); and (c) on September 1, 2008, the director of the Seoul Western District Tax Office added the amount equivalent to the purchase tax invoice amount of 318,428,340 won to the total income tax amount belonging to the purchase tax invoice of this case on September 1, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "taxation disposition of this case").

C. On July 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant supplementary detail and disposition, but was dismissed on September 20 of the same year. On November 7 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal, which was dismissed on the ground that on December 28 of the same year, the Plaintiff filed an objection 90 days after being served with the notice of the instant supplementary detailed and disposition.

D. On November 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition of imposing income tax, but was dismissed on December 23 of the same year. On March 2, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on April 30 of the same year.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, 7 through 9, Eul evidence 2, 12, 13, argument

The purport of the whole

2. Determination on the main safety defense of the defendant-propony director of the tax office

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case through an objection or a request for a national tax trial on the ground that the additional detailed disposition of this case is unlawful. Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the lawsuit of this case shall be filed within 90 days from the date when the plaintiff becomes aware of the corner of the disposition, but the period at the time of filing an administrative appeal is counted from the date when the original copy of the written adjudication is served. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 9 and No. 12-1, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the additional detailed disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on Nov. 7, 2007, but the original copy of the written ruling was dismissed on Jan. 3, 2008, and it is evident that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on Jul. 29, 2009, which was after the lapse of 90 days from the plaintiff, and therefore, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant is unlawful.

3. Determination on the claim against the director of the tax office of Seodaemun

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff actually traded as indicated in AAAE and the purchase tax invoice of this case, the head of Seodaemun Tax Office rendered a disposition imposing the income tax of this case by deeming it as a processing transaction and not including it in necessary expenses. Therefore, the said disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From March 23, 2005 to July 29, 2005, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a survey on data on AAABD and reported the current purchase from abnormal companies, such as CCTV, a stock company with no source of purchase, and flusium, which were confirmed by the regional tax office in the Central Tax Office, and then issued the processed sales tax invoice in the name of 16 billion won and issued the processed sales tax invoice in the name of AAB, and issued the processed sales tax invoice in the name of AABD to the Plaintiff, and notified the director of the Seoul District Tax Office of taxation data. Based on the above, the Defendant determined that the instant tax invoice was processed in the form of the processed sales transaction, as recognized earlier.

2) The twoE, the Plaintiff’s husband, and the actual operator of BB, was investigated by a tax official belonging to the Seoul Regional Tax Office in relation to the AABD’s data survey, and it was prepared and submitted a written confirmation that the above transaction was conducted by a gold-free business entity and that it was to purchase the FF (personally aesthetic, aesthetic, and non-commercial) known to the FF, and that the purchase tax invoice (571,312,509 won) in the name of the State (28 supply price) was received in cash without relation to the actual purchase.

3) The Plaintiff remitted the money by account transfer to AAAD. However, most of the above transfers were made after having deposited the money equivalent to the amount immediately before the transfer from EAAD, and the transfer was made to AAAD with the payment without passbook. However, as a result of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation, KimK, an employee of AAAAAAAD representative director, withdrawn cash from AAAAAD’s accounting and deposited the cash into AAB, etc. in the name of BB, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 12, 13, 15, Eul Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, 12-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Unless special circumstances exist, such as that if a tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer that a certain part of a transaction is a processing transaction in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it is difficult for the tax authority to readily deny the evidence of such written confirmation, barring special circumstances, such as that the written confirmation was drafted compulsorily against the intent of the originator, or that it is difficult to use it as supporting materials for specific facts due to paralysis of the content thereof, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 20

In light of the following circumstances: ① the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the meaning and importance of the confessions made by the Plaintiff in light of the Plaintiff’s business experience, etc.; ② AABD issued a processed tax invoice to the Plaintiff, etc.; ③ the details of the passbook transaction submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence of the actual transaction; ③ the amount of money similar to the amount of money deposited by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s account is deposited to the Plaintiff’s account first; ② the Plaintiff’s 20th anniversary of the receipt of a false deposit from the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff’s receipt of a false deposit statement from the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 20th official under the name of the Plaintiff’s 20th official title to the 30th official title of the 20th official title to the 3th official title of the 2nd official title to the 3th official title of the 2nd official title to the 3th official title of the 2nd official title to the 3th official title of the 2nd official title to the 3th official title of the 2nd official title.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the director of the tax office is unlawful and dismissed, and the claim against the director of the tax office of Seodaemun is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.