Criteria for determining false tax invoices

If the agency fails to prove that the tax invoice received from the person who was suspected of being accused of the fact that the tax invoice is not true, it shall be accepted as a normal tax invoice.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on January 5, 2006 of KRW 7,841,260 for the second period of 203, KRW 2,717,40 for the first period of 204, and KRW 1,986,560 for the second period of 204 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. From June 2001, the Plaintiff is running the processing and sale of bail and the wholesale and retail business from ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong, ○○○, ○○-dong, ○○○.

나. 원고는, 아래 표 기재와 같이 ① 2003년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 주식회사 ○○○○(이하 ‵소외 회사′라 한다)로부터 수취한 합계 52,957,671원 상당의 지금(地金) 매입세금계산서 8장, ② 2004년 제1기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 소외 회사로 부터 수취한 합계 20,000,029원 상당의 매입세금계산서 3장, ③ 2004년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 소외 회사로부터 수취한 합계 15,240,211원 상당의 매입세금계산서 3장(이하 위 각 세금계산서를 ‵이 사건 세금계산서′라 하고, 위 각 거래를 ‵이 사건 거래′라 한다)에 대한 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하여 신고하였다.

No.

Classification

Date

Items

Value of supply (cost)

1

203

August 13, 2003

now,

6,586,665

2

〃 4

August 22, 2003

〃 4

13,120,000

3

〃 4

September 3, 2003

〃 4

13,720,000

4

〃 4

September 16, 2003

〃 4

3,000,045

5

〃 4

September 22, 2003

〃 4

8,573,993

6

〃 4

September 27, 2003

〃 4

3,999,970

7

〃 4

December 11, 2003

〃 4

2,814,99

8

〃 4

December 19, 2003

〃 4

1,141,99

Sub-committees

52,957,671

9

1, 2004

January 16, 2004

〃 4

8,475,187

10

〃 4

February 18, 2004

〃 4

8,309,812

11

〃 4

March 27, 2004

〃 4

3,215,030

Sub-committees

20,000,029

12

204 Second Period

October 8, 2004

〃 4

5,790,000

13

〃 4

October 23, 2004

〃 4

3,950,086

14

〃 4

December 21, 2004

〃 4

5,500,125

Sub-committees

15,240,211

C. Meanwhile, the head of ○○○ Tax Office, as a result of conducting a tax investigation on the non-party company, filed a complaint with the ○○ Police Station on December 29, 2004 on the charge that the non-party company received or issued false tax invoices of KRW 37.75 billion and the total purchase amount of KRW 37.631 billion in total during the first taxable period from 2001 to 2004, and notified the Defendant of the instant tax invoice on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

라. 피고는 ○○세무서장의 통보에 따라 2006. 1. 5. 이 사건 세금계산서를 실물거래없는 가공세금계산서로 인정하여 원고에 대하여 부가가치세 2003년 제2기분 7,841,260원, 2004년 제1기분 2,717,400원, 2004년 제2기분 1,986,560원을 경정 · 고지하였다(이하 ‵이 사건 부과처분′이라 한다).

E. On March 29, 2006, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, requested the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on March 29, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the disposition on October 30, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 14, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from Nonparty Company and paid the price in cash, etc., the instant tax invoice is a normal transaction. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without real transaction, is unlawful.

(b) relevant statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

① 사업자가 납부하여야 할 부가가치세액(이하 ‶납부세액″이라 한다)은 자기가 공급한 재화 또는 용역에 대한 세액(이하 ‶매출세액″이라 한다)에서 다음 각호의 세액(이하 ‶매입세액″이라 한다)을 공제한 금액으로 한다. 다만, 매출세액을 초과하는 매입세액은 환급받을 세액(이하 ‶환급세액″이라 한다)으로 한다.

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:

1의2. 제16조 제1항 및 제3항의 규정에 의한 세금계산서를 교부받지 아니한 경우 또는 교부받은 세금계산서에 제16조 제1항 제1호 내지 제4호의 규정에 의한 기재사항(이하 ‶필요적 기재사항″이하 한다)의 전부 또는 일부가 기재되지 아니하였거나 사실과 다르게 기재된 경우의 매입세액. 다만, 대통령령이 정하는 경우의 매입세액은 제외한다. 끝.

C. Determination

The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false shall, in principle, be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice of this case is not accompanied by real transactions based on direct evidence or circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

In full view of the overall purport of pleadings and videos of evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 4-1, 2, 4-1, 6-2, 7-5, and 8-1 through 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, 2, 7-5, and 8-1 and 4 of the instant transaction chain, the Plaintiff’s corporate head of the deposit passbook, representative director, and director (the withdrawal of money from each deposit passbook of YO, the one transaction amount out of the instant transaction was deposited into the passbook of the non-party company, and the other transaction amount was deposited into the passbook of the non-party company, and the ○○ Central District Prosecutors’ Office accused the non-party company as a suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act as above. However, on December 23, 2005, the "○○○○ and the non-party company" filed a complaint with the non-party company on the grounds that it did not have any actual transaction and paid all taxes until now.

In light of the circumstances revealed in the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice that is not accompanied by real transactions only by the descriptions of Eul evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.