Whether a tax invoice received from the data is a processed tax invoice that is not a real transaction

The date and time of account transfer is entirely inconsistent with the purchase amount on the tax invoice of this case and the date and time of transaction, and the plaintiff asserted that he paid it in cash for the amount not verified by the fact of remittance with the deposit passbook or the receipt without passbook. However, the part of the contents asserted by the plaintiff as to it does not coincide with the certificate submitted by the plaintiff himself, and it constitutes a false tax invoice in light of the fact.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Summary of disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, 3, and 1-2:

A. From May 1, 200 to May 1, 200, the Plaintiff operated the clothing manufacturing company under the trade name "○○ Unemployment (excluding business registration number 117-03-82276)" from 537-7, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, and completed the purchase tax return for each taxable period after deducting the amount of input tax during each taxable period from total of 20, total of 292,16,40 won (excluding value-added tax) from the ○○○ commercial (representative Kim○; hereinafter referred to as the "○○○ commercial for convenience") located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, as described in the list of tax invoices during the value-added tax period from 202 to 1, 2003.

Table of Tax Invoice

Amount of taxable period

Date of issue

Suppliers

Value of Supply

(excluding value-added tax)

202. Second term portion

July 20, 2002

○○○○○○

7,005,000 won

July 30, 2002

〃 4

21,152,00 won

August 20, 2002

〃 4

23,108,00 won

September 20, 2002

〃 4

19,805,500 won

September 30, 2002

〃 4

10,560,000 won

October 30, 2002

〃 4

15,708,00 won

October 30, 2002

〃 4

17,866,00 won

November 30, 2002

〃 4

27,550,000 won

Total

142,754,500 won

203. First term portion

March 15, 2003

Soloro Commercial Code

1,744,00 won

on March 30, 2003

〃 4

10,473,00 won

April 15, 2003

〃 4

21,375,00 won

April 30, 2003

〃 4

6,543,00 won

May 16, 2003

〃 4

18,784,00 won

May 30, 2003

〃 4

10,765,00 won

June 15, 2003

〃 4

10,367,00 won

Total

90,051,000 won

203. Second term portion

July 15, 2003

Soloro Commercial Code

13,210,200 won

August 15, 2003

〃 4

1,186,00 won

September 15, 2003

〃 4

7,130,700 won

November 15, 2003

〃 4

16,543,00 won

December 15, 2003

〃 4

1,291,00 won

Total

59,360,900 won

B. On June 1, 2005, the Defendant imposed value-added tax amounting to KRW 23,254,600 on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2002, on July 10, 2003, value-added tax for the first period of 12,740,410, value-added tax amounting to KRW 8,070,720 on the second period of 203, on July 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) by being notified of tax evasion data from the head of the tax office on the data about the ○○○○○ and ○○○○○ commercial and the Plaintiff for each of the pertinent taxable periods.

Details of correction of value-added tax (unit: Won)

Amount of taxable period

output tax amount ①

Purchase Tax Amount ②

(Initial Report)

Motor Vehicle Doz.

(1) -(2)

No. 50

v. penalty tax

Radden Tax Amount

No. 3-No. 5)

202. Second term portion

27,963,751

627,711

(14,903,109)

27,336,040

13,060,642

8,979,258

23,254,656

203. First term portion

29,942,167

5,153,247

(14,158,347)

24,788,920

15,783,820

3,735,315

12,740,415

203. Second term portion

26,665,080

12,015,575

14,649,505

8,713,405

2,134,621

8,070,721

(17,951,675)

C. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on October 11, 2005, and the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on July 25, 2006.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received an order from the ○○○○ Company and the ○○○ Company for the goods, such as clothes, and paid the price by means of bank remittance, etc. As such, it can be confirmed by the relevant transaction statement, deposit slip, and deposit-free deposit account receipt, etc., the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

[Valued Tax]

Article 17 (1) The amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount obtained by deducting the tax amount under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry items”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice, excluding the input tax amount as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the evidence mentioned above, the following facts may be acknowledged in the statement of evidence B 1 to 14-4 (including paper numbers) and the fact-finding results of the fact-finding with respect to the North Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Office of Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office:

(1) On May 20, 2001, the ○○○○○○○ Company completed its business registration with its business registration "Yecheon Gyeyang-dong 273-2", "Yecheon-dong 273-2", "Representative Gim○○", and closed its business on December 1, 2002 without any purchase during the taxable period of the value-added tax for the second period of the value-added tax in 2002, reported only the tax base of the total amount of KRW 942,784,00, and did not pay the value-added tax of KRW 94,278,000.

(2) On March 1, 2003, ○○○○○○○○, a place of business of Gyeyang-dong 273-2, a "Yecheon-dong 273-2, a type of business," "manufacturing/mothered goods, clothing processing," and "representative ○○○○○," the ○○○○○○ Company filed a report on only the tax base of KRW 635,384,00 for the first period of year 203 (635,384,000 for the first period of year 203, and did not pay KRW 57,078,000 for the subsequent tax base (40 for the reported mail address, 40 for the reported sales tax invoice) for the total amount of KRW 503,490,000 for the second period of year 203, and paid KRW 503,5030,000 for the following reasons:

(3) (A) In filing a return on the taxable period of value-added tax for the second period from the second period of 2001 to the first period of 2002, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over North Korea: (a) suspected of receiving the purchase tax invoice from ○○○○, etc.; and (b) conducted a tax investigation for the said taxable period; (c) during the said taxable period, ○○○○○○, including the above ○○○○, received KRW 1,09,86,00 in total from 9 companies including the above ○○○○, etc.; (d) stated that the ○○○○○○, Inc. received KRW 28 of the purchase tax invoice; (e) for the same period, the amount of the processed tax invoice was 1,196,266,000 on the purchase tax invoice for the same period; and (e) ○○○○ and ○○○○ trading was 5,000 won on the purchase tax invoice for 2020 years including the Plaintiff.

(B) From January 1, 2003 to December 31 of the same year, 200, ○○○○○○○ Company issued and delivered sales tax invoices equivalent to KRW 1,650,00 to 38 companies including those that did not engage in real transactions; and 1,43,620 in total; and 1,138,874,000 (i.e., 635,384,000 + 50,000 won in total for 200,000 won in total; and (ii) 30,000,000 won in total for 20,000 won in sales and supply of goods and services from 30,000 won in sales and purchase tax invoices; and (iii) 1,506,000 won in total for 20,000 won in sales and purchase of goods and services from 30,000 won in total for 20,000 won in sales and services.

(4) While ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and its investigation, it was revealed to the effect that “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was trading with an actual trading with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.”

(5) However, on June 8, 1996, the above ○○ accusation was filed against the person who committed the actal actal actal actal material from the director of the Gangseo-gu Tax Office on the material of the trade name, i.e., "S., sexual unemployment". On December 30, 1996, the above ○○○ accusation was filed against the person who committed the actal actal material of the trade name, i.e., "○○" from the director of the tax office on December 30, 1996.

In addition, since March 9, 2004, ○○ completed the resident registration in Gyeyang-dong 273-2, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, but thereafter cancelled ex officio, and Kim○○ completed the resident registration under 855-30 ○○○○○ 202, where the father is residing on December 7, 2005, but the registration was canceled ex officio after the completion of the resident registration under 855-30 ○○ 202, which was the largest ○○○ was revoked on April 11, 2006.

(6) Meanwhile, during the taxable period of the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2002 value-added tax, the Plaintiff’s KRW 15,710,00 on July 15, 2002 with the agricultural bank deposit account (13014-56-068104), and KRW 4,550,000 on July 23, 2002; KRW 109,275 on September 18, 2002; KRW 17,00,000 on September 19, 2002; KRW 2,00,000,000 on September 19, 2002; KRW 19,80,000 on September 27, 2002; KRW 18,07,80 on Nov. 18, 2002; and

The Housing Bank Account (1761239251,9251, September 5, 2002, 1700,000 won) of ○○ Kim (1761239251, September 5, 2002) was transferred to each account, and the person who deposited the said Agricultural Bank Account during the said taxable period was not only the Plaintiff but also the Plaintiff’s deposit of KRW 7,00,000 on July 24, 2002, and most of the deposited money was deposited on the same day or following day, and there was no details of deposit and withdrawal after November 18, 2002.

(7) On the other hand, on June 30, 2004, the director of the Incheon Gyeyang District Tax Office accused the head of the Incheon Gyeyang District Tax Office of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the above ○○○○, who is the nominal business operator, Kim○ and the actual offender. On July 22, 2006, the head of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office accused the head of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act of the above ○○, who is the nominal business operator, and the actual offender, as the crime of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. On September 24, 2004, the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office filed a charge against the suspect of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the ○○○○○○ on the grounds that his whereabouts is unknown, the suspension of indictment against the suspect, and the suspension of indictment against the ○○○○ on the grounds of the same reason.

D. Determination

(1) If a tax invoice on a part of any of the costs reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely without real transactions by the Defendant, who is the tax authority, without real transactions, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost and the other party to the payment of the cost claimed by the taxpayer has been proved to the extent that it is reasonable for the taxpayer to believe that such cost has been actually paid, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the account book keeping and evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 199

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales account and received the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff on the basis of the fact that it was difficult to acknowledge that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales account was not deposited in cash. However, in light of the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales account and the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales account was not deposited in cash, the Plaintiff could not be deemed as having received the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff on the date and time sales account, and that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales account was merely an amount of money that was not deposited in cash, and that ○○○○○○○’s sales account, which was presented to the Plaintiff on the basis of the fact that ○○○○○○○’s sales account, supra, was in violation of the Act.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant denied and imposed the input tax deduction of the instant tax invoice is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.