Since it can be presumed that there was a purchase volume equivalent to the sold volume, the burden of proof for purchase exists in the tax authority.

Even if each of the receipts of this case is not a actual transaction, the defendant, in calculating the deductible expenses of the plaintiff for each of the business years of this case, shall recognize the purchase volume within the range corresponding to the plaintiff's sales volume and recognize the purchase price in an appropriate way.

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act

2015 Sponsives

〇〇〇

〇〇세무서장

June 10, 2015

July 22, 2015

1. Corporate tax for the year 2008 owed to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2012, KRW 731,63,750, and reverted to the Plaintiff in 2009

Each disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 21,841,530, and KRW 234,778,960 shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 20〇〇. 〇〇. 〇〇. 설립되어 〇〇 〇〇구 〇〇로 〇〇에서 고철제조・가공업, 고철제품 판매업 등을 하고 있다.

나. 원고는 2008년 사업연도부터 2010년 사업연도까지 사업자등록을 하지 않은 〇〇

〇 외 128명(이하 '이 사건 각 매입처'라 한다)으로부터 2008년 사업연도에1,713,131,300원, 2009년 사업연도에 65,695,050원, 2010년 사업연도에 722,667,350원 합계 2,501,493,700원(이하 '이 사건 각 매입금액'이라 한다)의 고철을 매입하였다는 것을 근거로 하여 이 사건 각 매입금액을 원고의 소득금액산정시 손금에 산입하여 법인세를 신고‧납부하였다.

다. 〇〇지방국세청장은 2011. 8. 23.부터 2012. 2. 29.까지 원고에 대하여 법인세 통

As a result of the joint investigation (hereinafter referred to as the "survey of this case"), it was determined that the Plaintiff falsely appropriated the cost even though the Plaintiff did not purchase the scrap metal from each of the purchase places of this case.

D. On the ground that each purchase price of the instant case constitutes a processing transaction without real transactions, the Defendant notified of the above findings as to the inclusion of deductible expenses, and each of the instant purchase price was 731,63,750 won of corporate tax of April 2, 2012, corporate tax of 2008, corporate tax of 21,841,530 won of corporate tax of 2009, corporate tax of 234,778,960 won of corporate tax of 2010 (including additional tax of 234,778,960 of corporate tax of 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied therewith, filed an objection on July 2, 2012, and filed an appeal on November 19, 2012

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed it on February 4, 2014.

Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

A business operator who engages in the business of collecting and selling scrap metal has no most of its business registration, and the place of residence is not fixed, and even if the Plaintiff purchases scrap metal from the Plaintiff, he/she cannot receive a receipt or receive a receipt without strict verification process. Since the Plaintiff purchases and compresseds it, there is no change in weight in the processing process, and the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale quantity of scrap metal including the instant scrap metal from 2008 to 2010 are almost similar. The Plaintiff’s account was withdrawn cash amounting to KRW 6.2 billion from 2008 to 4.6 billion from 2010, and the Plaintiff’s business operator’s BB filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, corporate tax evasion, but it is unlawful to view that the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale of scrap metal in violation of the substance over form principle, even if it was actually purchased and sold in violation of the substance over form principle.

B. Relevant statutes

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each evidence, evidence Nos. 4 through 22, evidence Nos. 4 through 11, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments mentioned above:

1) The Plaintiff purchased scrap metal, such as waste steel steel, scrap scrap, scrap scrap, steel recycling materials, etc., and sold them to the following steel companies, main steel companies, etc., which compressed, cut, and melted with a certain form of punishment. There is no process that can change the weight of scrap metal in the process of processing. BB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, the father of AA, is substantially operating the Plaintiff.

2) 〇〇지방국세청은 이 사건 조사과정에서 원고가 개인으로부터 고철을 매입한 거래에 대하여 거래증빙으로 보관하고 있었던 각 영수증을 확인한 결과, 아래 표 '거래부인'란 기재와 같이 AAA 외 11명 관련 영수증(매입금액 306,192,450원)은 매입처로 기재된 자가 거래를 부인하였고, 아래 표 '주민등록번호 미기재자 중 반송 및 미회신'란 기재와 같이 〇〇〇 외 116명 관련 영수증(매입금액 2,195,301,250원)은 인적사항이기재되지 않거나 우편조회결과 반송 또는 미회신되어 거래내역을 확인할 수 없었다(이

under each of the following receipts is "each of the receipts of this case", and "the scrap metal of this case" purchased accordingly.

3) At the time of the investigation of the instant case, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a written confirmation that the Plaintiff had transacted with the Plaintiff as follows.

4) 〇〇지방국세청이 원고가 제출한 박무석, EEE, DDD, DDD, CCC의 각확인서에 대하여 현지 조사한 결과, DDD은 BBB의 지인으로 BBB의 부탁을 받고 확인서에 날인하였을 뿐 거래사실이 없다고 하였고, 박무석, EEE, DDD, CCC의 경우 고철 등을 거래한 사실이 있다고 답변은 하였으나, 그 거래내용을 확인할 수있는 자료는 제시하지 못하였다.

5) BB made the following statements at the time of the instant investigation.

6) On October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and BB filed a criminal charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by subjecting to the imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax evasion related to each purchase amount of the instant case, but the amount that BB paid as the purchase amount of the Plaintiff’s scrap metal from 2008 to 2010 is equivalent to KRW 4.6 billion.6 billion, it cannot be ruled out that the possibility that BB would have paid as the purchase amount of the scrap metal as alleged in BB due to the withdrawal in cash from the Plaintiff’s corporate passbook, and that in light of the characteristics of the scrap metal wholesale business, it cannot be readily concluded that each of the instant receipts of the instant case was falsely prepared.

7) The Plaintiff’s stock quantity, the purchase, sale and amount carried over from the year 2008 to the business year 2010, and the instant scrap metal quantity equivalent to the purchase amount in this case are as listed below.

D. Determination

(1) In principle, sales are established by the volume of scrap metal purchased differently from the general manufacturing business. When determining the amount of business income of a scrap metal wholesaler, if a scrap metal wholesaler recognizes the amount reported as the amount of sales of scrap metal and calculates the necessary expenses, the amount of total revenue would result in the seller’s processing and sales of the scrap metal that was not purchased. Thus, it can be presumed that the amount of inventory carried over in the previous year exceeds the total stock of the enterpriser’s assertion, or the sales price was calculated or the sales price was calculated, barring any special circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu88, Jun. 26, 1984; 88Nu10589, Jul. 11, 1989; 9Nu1430, Oct. 8, 1993; 199; 209Nu1450, Apr. 14, 197; 2000).

(2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, the Plaintiff could be presumed to have purchased the volume of the instant scrap metal to the sales volume for each business year, including the purchase volume of the instant scrap metal.

(1) In scrap metal transactions that purchase scrap metal from small scrap metal collection stores or solid water storages, etc., it is difficult to verify accurate personal information about the purchaser due to its nature, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the purchase transaction itself is a false transaction solely on the ground that the purchaser of each of the instant receipts is not verified.

② The Plaintiff’s sales office was issued a tax invoice by the Plaintiff as a lecture company, main company, etc., and it is extremely low that the Plaintiff’s sales could contain false sales due to the nature of the transaction (the Defendant also recognized it in the course of the instant investigation).

③ There is no process that can change the weight of scrap metal in the process of the Plaintiff’s processing, and there is no difference in the weight of purchase and sale except for the error of measurement at the time of purchase and sale and some loss in the process of processing.

④ If it is recognized as the Defendant’s disposition, the Plaintiff processed the scrap metal of 118,964km + the quantity of 19,468,319kg + the quantity of 19,48,08,080 g of 19,551,910 g of 16,150,004 g of 16,1509 + the quantity of 268,919 g of 16,05,715 - 174,630 g of 16,330,485 g of 2008 + the quantity of 19,48,249,319 g of the total stock + the quantity of 19,48,08,00 g of the non-deductible of deductible expenses, and purchased the scrap metal of 16,50,171,247,741,747 g of 207).

(3) Although each of the receipts of this case did not actually engage in the actual transaction, the defendant recognized the purchase amount within the extent corresponding to the plaintiff's sales volume and recognized the purchase amount by a reasonable method (it can be considered that the method of calculating the average purchase price of other normal trading volume can be considered) in calculating the plaintiff's deductible expenses for each of the business years of this case, but denied the purchase amount itself and issued the disposition of this case. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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