right to dispose of the input tax invoice received from data (Plastic manufacturing business)

No evidence exists that the company that was accused on the data did not make any actual transaction and only issued the processed tax invoice, and that there is no evidence that the tax invoice received by the plaintiff is irrelevant to the actual transaction.

1. The Defendant’s revocation of value-added tax for the second period of February 1, 2003 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2006 KRW 2,984,940 for the second period of 203.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 31, 2003 to December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff, as an entrepreneur who manufactures plastic compressed products with the trade name “○○○○○○○dong 00”, received three copies of the tax invoices of KRW 21,750,000 ( KRW 8,750,000 on October 31, 2003, KRW 6,750,000 on November 30, 200, and KRW 5,500,000 on December 31, 2003, after deducting them from the input tax amount.

B. On February 1, 2006, the Defendant received a notice from the head of ○○ Tax Office to the effect that the instant tax invoice was issued without a real transaction, and received a notice of correction of KRW 2,984,940 for the second period of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”). The Defendant considered the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice, and deducted the input tax amount as a false tax invoice, and notified the Plaintiff as to the Plaintiff of the revised notice of

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on April 26, 2006, and the said appeal was dismissed on July 27, 2006.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition Gap, the purport of the whole pleadings stated in Gap evidence 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff actually purchased plastic waste materials, etc. from 000 Lart as stated in the tax invoice of this case. The defendant's disposition of this case on the ground that the tax invoice of this case is false is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In the administrative litigation dealing with the illegality of taxation, the burden of proving the existence of taxation requirements lies on the tax authority. Therefore, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, and if it is proved that the tax invoice reported by the defendant who is the tax authority was prepared without real transactions, it is necessary for the taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books, to prove that there was an actual transaction, such as the tax invoice.

(2) However, as to the instant case, the facts charged by the head of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (including a serial number) on each of the descriptions listed in subparagraph 2, subparagraph 3 (including a serial number), are acknowledged. However, there is no evidence to prove that the instant tax invoice was included in the facts of accusation, or that the instant tax invoice was a company that issues only the processed tax invoice without making any actual transaction. Rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings and the testimony of the witness Kim○○○, the fact that the private truck driver Kim○○ at the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong waste storage around 203, with the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○ operated by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff received a copy of the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff to the ○○○○○○○-dong store without taking account of the circumstances such as the actual transaction of the instant goods, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff was an employee of the instant tax invoice.

(3) Therefore, the burden of proving that the instant tax invoice was false is still imposed on the Defendant, and there is still no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant tax invoice was false on the sole basis of the entries in Section B, Section B, and Section B, Section B, and Section 3 (including serial numbers).

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

public official law, order of law,

Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount) (2) The following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of tax invoices by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties is not entered or entered differently from the fact, from among the entry items of the list of the total tax invoice by customer submitted; and

Article 21 (Correction) (1) The head of a district tax office, the head of a district tax office, the head of a district tax office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax base of value-added tax or the

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or the list of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the list is not entered