Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-58034 ( November 02, 2017)

Whether it is a false tax invoice or not

In the process of lending funds, the purchase tax invoice shall be received with the amount of the loan, interest thereon, and the amount equivalent to damages for delay as the transaction amount, and the tax invoice shall be received with the business operator who is not able to create added value separately from the Plaintiff, and it is true

Article 17 of the Income Tax Act

2017Nu8480 Such revocation as value-added tax, etc.

Plaintiff, Appellants

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

April 24, 2018

May 15, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each value-added tax and corporate tax (including each additional tax) entered in the attached list of the judgment of the first instance that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court in this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment of the court in the first instance as set forth in the following Paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ At the 8th bottom of the judgment of the first instance court, 8, 26 - 5 - one - one - one - one - one - one - one - one - one - one - one - the court shall be 'the first instance court' respectively.

○ The judgment of the first instance court 17th 6th 'not appeal' has been made as ‘request for formal trial'.

○ At the bottom of the 29th judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added:

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, all purchase tax invoices and sales tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff fromCC among the instant tax invoices may be deemed to constitute a tax invoice stating the necessary entries differently from the facts. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that each of the said tax invoices was issued according to a real transaction.

○ The following shall be added from the 29th judgment of the first instance to the following:

[In contrast, the letter of confirmation (Evidence A No. 27) dated December 10, 2015, prepared three years after the issuance of the above letter of confirmation, stating that aa did not submit the above letter of confirmation on June 20, 2012 and all the transactions ofCC were true, but it is difficult to believe it in light of the circumstances, etc. in which the above letter of confirmation was submitted without any explanation about other special reasons or circumstances after the dispute over the transaction in whichCC was involved was absent.]

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If a taxpayer selects one of the several legal relationships in order to achieve the same economic purpose in conducting economic activities, the tax authority shall respect the transaction of the instant distribution monitoring device and the EE Telecommunication Network supply transaction. However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff selects the other party, the Defendant erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of substantial taxation, thereby deeming each of the above transactions as a processing transaction, and determined that the entries of the tax invoice of this case are different from the facts, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted in cases where all or part of the necessary entry items of the tax invoice are entered differently from the facts. If the contents of the tax invoice are not stated correctly, it is impossible to function as an invoice for calculating the amount of tax payable under the Value-Added Tax Act, and as a result, the basis of the value-added tax system is considerably shaken, and as a result, it is difficult to accurately calculate corporate tax, income tax, local tax, etc. without securing accuracy and accuracy of the tax invoice that serves as the basis of the operation of the value-added tax system, and it is difficult to expect that the tax invoice is entirely and appropriately assessed against the final consumer, who is the actual holder of the tax, as a kind of sanction to secure accuracy and accuracy of the tax invoice that serves as the basis of the operation of the value-added tax system. In other words, the aforementioned provision merely provides that input tax deduction for the relevant transaction shall not be permitted as a means of sanction to achieve the above legislative purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Hun-Ba65, Dec. 126, 20002, 2002).

As seen earlier, insofar as the tax invoice of this case is issued independently with a person who is not an independent supplier of goods or services, or is issued without a real transaction of goods or services, it constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact. Thus, on a different premise, the prior plaintiff's above assertion is without merit (the Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2332 Decided January 27, 2005 cited by the plaintiff is not a matter of issue as to whether it is a tax invoice written differently from the fact, and it is inappropriate to be invoked in this case).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.