Whether it constitutes a tax invoice received without a real transaction

Since the workplace directly purchases the current, etc. from another company and takes the form of transactions through the main office only for the convenience of transaction terms and conditions, it seems that it actually purchased the current, etc.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act EX

1. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003 against the plaintiff on March 2, 2006, of value-added tax for the second period of 2003, of value-added tax for the first period of 2004, of value-added tax for the first period of 8,502,290, and of value-added tax 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;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of the statements and arguments as stated in Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 5-6, and all the arguments:

A. The plaintiff set up a main office (business registration number: 00-○-○-○ precious metal store: 00-○-○○○○○) on the second floor of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○), and sold quasi-je Ba Ba-Ba on the second floor located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and

나. 원고는 피고에게, ① 이 사건 사업장에 대한 2003년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 주식회사 ○○골드(이하 '소외 회사'라고 한다)로부터 수취한 2003. ○○ ○○.자, 같은해 ○○. ○○.자, 같은 해 ○○. ○○.자 및 같은 해 ○○. ○○.자 공급가액 합계 42,309,000원 상당인 지금(紙金) 등(지금 ·지은 ·백금)의 매입세금계산서 4장을 제출하여 이를 매입세액으로 공제하여 신고하였고, ② 2004년 제1기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 소외 회사로부터 수취한 2004. ○. ○○.자, 같은 해 ○. ○○.자, 같은 해 ○. ○○.자, 같은 해 ○. ○○. 같은 해 ○. ○○.자, 같은 해 ○. ○○.자, 같은 해 ○. ○○.자 및 같은 해 ○. ○○.자 공급가액 합계 61,817,000원 상당인 매입세금계산서 8장을 제출하여 이를 매입세액으로 공제하여 신고하였으며. ③ 2004년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 소외 회사로부터 수취한 2004. ○. ○○, 같은 해 ○. ○○, 같은 해 ○. ○○. 같은 해 ○. ○○, 같은 해 ○. ○자, 같은 해 ○.○○.자. 같은 해 ○. ○, 같은 해 ○. ○.자, 같은 해 ○. ○, 같은 해 ○. ○. 같은 해 ○. ○, 같은 해 ○. ○, 같은 해 ○. ○ 및 같은 해 ○. ○ 공급가액 합계 103,541,000원 상당인 매입세금계산서(이하 위 각 세금계산서를 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라고 한다) 14장을 제출하여 이를 매입세액으로 공제하여 신고하였다.

C. Meanwhile, the head of ○○○ Tax Office, as a result of conducting a tax investigation on the non-party company, filed an accusation against the non-party company on suspicion that the ○○○○, the representative of the non-party company, received or issued a false tax invoice of KRW 37.75 billion and the total purchase amount of KRW 37.63 billion in total during the taxable period from the first period from 2001 to the first period from 2004, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff was suspected of being issued each of the instant tax invoices from the non-party company without a real transaction.

D. Accordingly, the defendant conducted an investigation of value-added tax on the place of business of this case from December 12, 2005 to January 20, 2006, and determined that each of the tax invoices of this case constituted a tax invoice received without real transaction. On March 6, 2006, the defendant corrected and notified the plaintiff of value-added tax of the second period portion of value-added tax of 2003, KRW 6,473,700, and KRW 8,502,920, value-added tax for the first period of 2004, KRW 13,670,510 for the second period of 204 (hereinafter "the disposition of this case").

E. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on October 2006, 2006. However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on October 2006.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff purchased each of the tax invoices of this case from the non-party company and paid the price in full. Accordingly, since the plaintiff received each of the tax invoices of this case without actual transactions, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case was unlawful. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the disposition of this case, which was based on the premise that the plaintiff received each of the tax invoices of this case without actual transactions, was not directly purchased from the non-party company but through the head office of ○○ juri, so the purchase tax invoice of this case was issued from the non-party company even though it was issued by the non-party company, and therefore, the supplier of each of the tax invoices of this case is different from the fact, and each of the tax invoices of this case is not accompanied by actual transactions. Thus, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under 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 a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

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 item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount on the circumstances as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

C. Determination

Therefore, in full view of each of the tax invoices of this case, as to whether the tax invoices of this case received without real transaction, 1, 2, 12-4, and 7, the plaintiff's representative director is operating the plaintiff company independently, and ○○○○, a large discount store, etc., operated several precious metal sales stores under the name of "○○○○○" in each of the stores such as "○○○, a large discount store," and the business place of this case took the name of "○○○○, etc.," and then, the sales of this case was transferred to the head office to the non-party company, and the sales of this case was conducted by the non-party company to pay the non-party company the purchase price of this case to the non-party company by transferring the tax invoices of this case to the head office, and the business place operated with "○○○," the non-party company directly purchased the non-party company's sales of this case from the non-party company's head office or the non-party company's sales contract of this case.

Therefore, each of the instant tax invoices is deemed to have been actually purchased and issued from the non-party company, and thus, the instant tax invoices, based on the opposite premise, should be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.