Whether it is a tax invoice that actually purchased and received electronic equipment

The mere fact that the company which issued the tax invoice files an accusation on the data does not have to confirm it as a false tax invoice which is different from the fact that the instant tax invoice does not accompany the real transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 13,199,780 on March 1, 2007; KRW 13,726,830 on the second period portion of value-added tax for the year 2000; KRW 13,100,610 on the corporate tax for the business year 2001; KRW 7,768,890 on the corporate tax for the business year 2002; and KRW 10,122,070 on the business year 203; KRW 5,57,017 on the business year 204; and KRW 6,761,531 on the taxable year 205, shall be revoked, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of the trial of this court;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant, and the court of the first instance rejected the part of the claim seeking revocation of the decision-making disposition, which deducts the respective amount of KRW 10,122,070 for the business year 2003, KRW 5,57,017 for the business year 204, and KRW 6,761,531 for the business year 2005 from the loss carried forward in each year, and cited the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax. Since only the Defendant appealed, the subject of the judgment of the court is limited to the claim for revocation of the disposition

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "The withdrawal amount of the Plaintiff's passbook No. 9 is somewhat different from the amount of the deposit sheet received by the Plaintiff, or the Plaintiff's statement on the Plaintiff's tangible assets depreciation cost is different from the amount of the deposit sheet, considering the circumstance that the acquisition date and the supply value are different from the amount of the Plaintiff's tangible assets depreciation cost statement on part of the goods of this case, the court's reasoning for the judgment of the first instance (excluding this safety judgment of the second instance) is the same as the entry in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding this safety judgment of the second instance). Thus, it is cited

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap47619 ( April 11, 2008)]

1. Each part of the lawsuit in this case seeking the revocation of a disposition which was deducted from the deficit carried forward in each of the pertinent years by the amount of KRW 10,122,070 for the business year 200, KRW 5,557,017 for the business year 204, and KRW 6,761,531 for the business year 205.

2. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 13,726,830, corporate tax of KRW 13,100,610, corporate tax of KRW 13,100,610, and corporate tax of KRW 7,768,890 for the second period of 2000 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Disposition No. 2 and the defendant on March 1, 2007, deducted each amount of KRW 10,122,070,070 for the business year of 2004, and KRW 5,557,017 for the business year of 2004, and KRW 6,6761,531 for the business year of 2005, from losses carried forward for each year, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 ◯◯ ◯◯구 ◯◯동 212-8 ◯◯◯◯타워 1차 6층에서 테이터베이스 및 온라인 정보 제공업을 하는 법인으로서, 2000. 10. 27, 2000. 11. 22. 및

2000. 12. 13. 주식회사 ◯◯ ◯◯통신(이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)으로부터 아래 표 기재와 같은 2000년도 제 2기 매입세금계산서 3장(공급가액 96,145,000원, 이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 한다)를 교부받아 매입세액을 공제하여 2000년 제2기분 부가가치세를 신고하였다. 또한 원고는 아래 표와 같은 물품(이하 '이 사건 물품'이라 한다)을 유형자산으로 계상하고 위 공급가액에 해당하는 감가상각비 89,380,469원(200 사업연도 1,680,697원, 2001 사업연도 33,583,399원, 2002 사업연도 18,437,286원, 2003 사업연도 10,122,070원, 2004 사업연도 5,557,017원, 2005 사업연도 6,761,531원)을 손금에 산입하여 2000 사업연도부터 2005 사업연도까지 법인세를 신고하였다.

Date of transaction

Items

Number of Goods

Amount of supply price

Amount of tax

date of transaction;

Items of articles

Quantity

Amount of public capital equivalent to the amount of

Amount of tax:

October 27, 2000

◯◯모니터17"

5

2,345

234

November 22, 2000

◯◯PC

1

982

98

◯◯모니터15"

2

560

56

◯◯프린터

2

582

58

◯◯모니터E17"

5

1,600

160

1/4incartrige

50

22,500

2,250

◯◯모니터NF19"

2

1,240

124

High speed caters

1

15,400

1,540

CompP3-600

3

9,150

915

Sub-committees

39,464

3,946

CompP3-400

2

5,200

520

December 13, 2000

Router 3501

7,500

750

SamsungPC5315

5

6,000

600

◯◯PC4340

2,231

223

Compact pPCM5317

2

2,342

234

Hobbal tons ES3024

4,200

420

prefabricated PC

3

3,267

327

Sub-committees

13,931

1,393

PC팩◯◯G3

1

946

95

◯◯센스(노트북)

2

5,600

560

Hub3COM3C1675

3

4,500

450

Sub-committees

42,750

4,275

Consolidateds

96,145

9,614

나. 피고는 ◯◯세무서장으로부터 소외 회사가 실물거래 없이 세금계산서를 발행한 자료상이라는 과세자료를 통보받고, 이 사건 세금계산서가 실물거래 없이 사실과 다른 허위의 세금계산서라고 보아 2007. 3. 1. 원고에게 매입세액을 불공제하여 부가가치세 2000년 제2기분 23,199,780원을 경정, 고지하였다. 또한 이 사건 물품에 대한 감가상각비를 손금불산입하여 2000사업연도 귀속 법인세 13,726,830원, 2001 사업연도 귀속 법인세 13,100,610원, 2002 사업연도 귀속 법인세 7,768,890원의 각 부과처분을 하였고, 이 사건 물품에 대한 2003 사업연도 10,122,070원 204 사업연도 5,557,017원, 2005 사업연도 6,761,531원의 각 감가상각비를 이월결손금에서 공제하는 것으로 2003, 2004, 2005 사업연도 과세표준을 결정하였다.

C. On June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Service, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request on September 20, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (at least number Nos. 1 through 6) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment of this case

On the other hand, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case that seeks revocation of the decision-making disposition, which deducts the amount of KRW 10,122,070 for the business year 2003, KRW 5,557,017 for the business year 2004, and KRW 6,761,531 for the business year 2005 for the business year 6,761, and 531 for the business year 205 for the pertinent business year, is the tax base of corporate tax, which is the prior decision prior to the disposition of corporate tax and does not immediately take effect, but there is no way to deal with the disposition of corporate tax when the disposition of corporate tax is issued later, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition subject to appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12842, Sept.

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case seeking revocation of the decision disposition, which is obtained by deducting each amount of KRW 10,122,070 for the business year 2003, KRW 5,555,017 for the business year 2004, and KRW 6,761,531 for the business year 205 for the business year 2005, shall be dismissed as unlawful.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant goods from the Nonparty Company and received the instant tax invoice and filed a value-added tax and corporate tax return, the instant disposition imposing the instant tax invoice by deeming it as a false tax invoice is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

C. Determination

1) In an administrative litigation seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation, in principle, the Defendant, who is the tax authority, bears the burden of proof with respect to the legality of disposition and the existence of the facts requiring taxation. However, with respect to the existence of special circumstances belonging to this precedent based on the empirical rule, the Plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, should bear the burden of proof or proof. Therefore, the burden of proof with respect to the amount of expenses to be included in deductible expenses, which are the basis for determining the amount of income as the corporate tax base, is determined by the tax authority in principle. However, whether the burden of proof regarding specific items of expenses is difficult or when the taxpayer bears the burden of proof in consideration of the equity of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu129

2) 과연 이 사건 세금계산서가 실물거래 없이 발행된 허위의 세금계산서인지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 을 제7호증의 기재에 의하면, ◯◯세무서장은 소외 회사에 대하여 200. 1. 1.부터 2001. 12. 31.까지 기간 동안 자료상 혐의 조사를 하여 소외 회사를 자료상으로 판단하고 그 대표자를 고발한 사실은 인정된다. 그러나 한편 갑 제2 내지 9호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 원고가 피고로부터 이 사건 세금계산서에 대한 실물거래 여부에 관하여 소명할 것을 요구받고 원고 통장에서 현금을 인출하여 일부를 물품대금으로 지급하고 이에 대한 증비서류로 아래표 기재와 같은 입금표(갑 제7호증의 1. 2. 3)와 세금계산서를 제출하고 있는 점, ② 소외 회사가 ◯◯세무서장으로부터 자료상으로 조사받을 당시 원고에게 실물거래 없이 허위의 이 사건 세금계산서를 발행하였다는 사실이 직접 조사되어 확인된 것은 아니고 이 사건 변론에 현출된 모든 자료를 종합하여도 소외 회사가 '100% 자료상'이라고 인정하기엔 부족한 점, ③ 원고는 이 사건 세금계산서상의 거래가 실물거래라고 주장하면서 실제로 이 사건 물품에 대한 거래가 있었다고 보이는 소외 회사와 사이의 2000.10.5. 및 2000.10.7. 2회에 걸친 이 사건 물품에 대한 견적서(갑 제3호증의 1, 2)와 2000.10.23. 작성된 물품공급계약서(갑 제4호증), 2000.10.27. 및 2000.12.13. 이 사건 물품이 원고 회사에 설치되어 있음을 확인하는 물품설치확인서(갑 제6호증의 1, 2) 등의 소명자료를 제출하고 있는 점, ④ 원고는 이 사건 물품을 구입하였다는 거래내용을 확인하기 위해 제품 제조업체인 ◯◯정보통신 주식회사 외 3개 업체에 유통과정을 확인해 달라는 공문을 발송하였으나, 이 사건 물품의 제조업체가 이 사건 세금계산서 발행이후 약 7여년이 지난 현재 이 사건 물품에 관하여 판매하고 유통하였다는 점에 관하여 이를 인정할 만한 자료를 찾을 수 없다는 회신을 하여 온 점, ⑤ 기타 원고가 소외 회사의 조세포탈행위에 가담하였다거나 이를 알았다고 볼 만한 사정도 달리 발견 되지 않는 점 등을 종합하면, 앞서 인정한 바와 같이 이 사건 세금계산서를 발행한 소외 회사가 자료상으로 고발되었다는 사정만으로는 이 사건 세금계산서가 실물거래를 동반하지 않은 사실과 다른 세금계산서라고 추인하기에는 부족하고, 그 밖에 달리 이 사건 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 허위의 것이라고 볼 만한 증거가 없다.

(unit:,000 won)

Withdrawal of Tong

Tax Invoice

Deposit List

Date

Amount

Date of Supply

Value of Supply

Amount of tax

Date

amount of gold

November 7, 2000

30,000

oly 27, 2000

42,750

4,275

November 7, 2000

27,000

December 8, 200

141,016

November 22, 200

39,464

3,946

December 8, 200

53,000

December 26, 200

26,819

December 13, 200

13,931

1,393

December 26, 200

25,759

Total

197,835

96,145

9,614

105,759

3) Therefore, the instant imposition disposition imposed on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition stipulated in Paragraph (1) of this Article shall be dismissed, and the part seeking the cancellation of the disposition stipulated in Paragraph (2) of this case among the plaintiff's claims of this case shall be accepted and so decided as per Disposition.