The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual purchase of the disposition was made through processing transactions.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that an employee, on behalf of the Plaintiff, prepared a passbook transfer certificate on behalf of the Plaintiff in order to save the waiting time and fee of the bank while saving the remittance fee even though it can save the remittance fee. However, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the employee, on behalf of the Plaintiff, prepared a passbook transfer certificate at the risk of theft and loss.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2002 against the plaintiff on June 16, 2007, adjusted to KRW 16,767,700 for the first term of 202, value-added tax for the second term of 2002, adjusted to KRW 4,439,290 for the second term of 200, and the disposition of adjusted to KRW 18,603,830 for the second term of 201 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff was engaged in precious metal retail business from August 31, 2000, with the trade name of ○○○○-dong 3 ○○○○○○○, ○○-dong, ○○○○.

B. The Plaintiff received 205,725,145 won (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in total from ○○○△△△△ (hereinafter “○○○○”) during the taxable period from 2001 to 2002, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount on the value of supply.

C. As to this, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction for the value of supply entered on the ground that the instant tax invoice is a processing tax invoice that was issued without real transaction with ○○○△△△, and issued a disposition to correct and notify the Plaintiff of the input tax deduction for the value of supply entered on June 16, 2006 and KRW 16,767,700 for the first period of 202, value-added tax 4,439,290 for the second period of 202, value-added tax 4,439,290 for the second period of 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1, 2, 3, 4 evidence, Eul 1, 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff’s sales of precious metal retail stores over 20 years, the Plaintiff did not have a position to provide non-data or processing services, such as the president of the headquarters of the Korea Development Association, etc. from July 2001 to March 2003, the Plaintiff actually purchased 2,200 g above at the price of KRW 296,540,00 for 22 months from July 2003. The purchase process is the Plaintiff’s sales process of this case’s sales contract with the Plaintiff’s agent of this case’s sales contract with the Plaintiff at the Busan Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s agent at the Busan Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s agent at the Busan Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff’s agent at the Busan Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s agent at the Busan Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s agent at the Busan Industrial Complex Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s agent at the Busan Industrial Complex Co., Ltd.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence of 9, Gap evidence of 10-1, Eul evidence of 10-2, Eul evidence of 4-1, Eul evidence of 4-2, Eul evidence of 7-1, Eul evidence of 11-1 through 7, Eul evidence of 27, 29.

(1) From July 20, 200 to December 11, 2001, 102, 102,398,000 won in the name of the Plaintiff and six times in total from January 15, 2002 to June 12, 2002, 97,626,000 won in six times in total, and 26,963,000 won in total and eight August 22, 2002, from March 27, 2003 to April 24, 2003, and the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from the Plaintiff to the bank account of 00,000 won without passbook.

(2)○○○쥬얼리는 조○호가 자본금 5,000만원으로 설립한 회사로 2003년 1기에 주식회사 ○○무역,○○레이딩 주식회사, 주식회사 ○○퀸, ○○골드 주식회사 등으로부터 총 241,036,000,000원 상당의 지금 등을 매입하여 주식회사 ○○○○골드 외 21개 업체에 판매하였다고 신고하였는데 이러한 매입처 회사들은 관할 세무서의 조사 결과 자료상으로 인정되었으며, ○○○쥬얼리가 2003년 1기의 매입액 중 위 업체들로부터 매입하였다는 금액은 99.9%(214,018,000,000원)에 달하는 한편, 남대문세무서에서 ○○○쥬얼리를 자료상 혐의로 조사하면서 매출처를 조사한 결과 매출액의 81.3%에 해당하는 매출 세금계산서가 주식회사 ○○○○골드 외 21개 업체에게 발행된 것으로 나타났고, 그 매출처들의 대부분은 자료상 등의 범죄이력이 있는 업체로 밝혀지자 남대문세무서장은 2006.3.2. ○○○쥬얼 리가 2001.3.5.부터 2003.12.31.까지 매입세금계산서의 대부분을 자료상으로 고발된 업체로부터 수취하였고, ○○○쥬얼리가 발행한 매출세금계산서도 가공의 매출세금계산서라는 이유로 ○○○쥬얼리와 그 대표자 조○호를 조세범처벌법위반 등 혐의로 고발하였으나 조○호의 소재불명으로 기소중지 상태에 있으며, 위 회사의 2001년부터 2003년 사이의 당기순이익은 1억 6,000만원에 불과하였다.

(3) The ○○○ Bank’s representative set up a transaction account at the ○○○ Dong branch of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation. On each deposit without a passbook in paragraph (1) above, the writing written without the Plaintiff’s resident registration number was confirmed by the language of the ○○○ Forest. This paper also recognized that, in addition to the Plaintiff, the ○○○ Bank’s ○○○○, ○○○○○ (representative: ○○), ○○○ (representative: ○), ○○○ (representative: ○○), ○○○ (representative: ○○), ○○○ (representative: ○○), ○○○○ (representative: ○), ○○○○ (representative: ○○, ○○○ (representative: ○○), ○○○ (representative: ○○), ○○○ (representative), and ○○○○ (representative)

(4) The details of the Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax are as follows.

Taxation Period

Sales Schedule (1)

Purchase Schedule (B)

Value-added Rate

(1-2) / 1 X100

1, 2002

142,480,937

111,135,131

22.0

202. 2

124,903,722

97,009,821

22.3

1, 2003

128,243,518

104,060,480

18.9

203.2

57,628,792

24,854,483

56.9

100 1. 1

66,046,368

29,482,267

5.4

204.2

79,682,548

39,040,655

51.0

(5) There is no taxation on the transaction with ○○ Trade or ○○ Trade.

(6) The Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 28,301,000 to the ○○○○○○○, the transaction period of this case, from July 25, 2001 to September 5, 2002.

(7) As from January 2, 2002, ○○ Korea Co., Ltd. commenced the precious metal delivery business between Seoul and Jinju.

D. Determination

The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by a real transaction, based on direct evidence or circumstances. If the defendant has proved to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to dispute the illegality of the defendant's disposition to present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

Therefore, in light of the fact that most of ○○○○○○○○○○ △○○○○ △○○○ △○○○ △○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ △○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.