early 209west2195 ( December 17, 2009)

Whether a processed tax invoice related to the taxi transport business has been received;

It is reasonable to view that the tax invoice received by the customer was a normal transaction, in full view of the monthly automobile parts cost and the characteristics of the business type that mainly gives approval for payment of parts in cash, as a result of the investigation into the suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the customer.

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of October 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2008 and the imposition of KRW 9,853,710 for the business year of 205 and the corporate tax for the business year of 2005 is revoked.

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 March 5, 1971, the Plaintiff was a company operating the taxi passenger transport business (the Plaintiff had 116 taxis as of March 5, 2005) and was issued a purchase tax invoice of KRW 30,101,100 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from the output tax amount after deducting the total value of supply from the output tax amount after adding the purchase amount to the deductible expenses.

B. On Dec. 2, 2007, the director of the District Tax Office filed a complaint with the competent authority on the basis of the data survey results on the above Jung-A, which became final and conclusive on the data, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice.

C. Accordingly, on October 1, 2008, the Defendant: (a) deducted input tax amount on the premise that the instant tax invoice constitutes a non-real transaction processing tax invoice; and (b) imposed KRW 4,672,360 on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2005 and KRW 9,853,710 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 2005; and (c) imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff for the business year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if it is a material category, it can be said that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice through normal transactions in full view of the following: (a) the transaction with the Plaintiff is difficult to readily conclude that it is a processing transaction, (b) the investigation conducted under suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the regular company; and (c) the Plaintiff’s monthly vehicle part expenses and the characteristics of the type of business that mainly pays cash payment, etc.; and (d) the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice through normal transactions.

Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without real transaction is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Specific receipt details of the instant tax invoice are as follows.

(2) On December 20, 2001, Jeong opened the wholesale store for automobile goods in the name of "Bteno," and closed the business on July 28, 2006. On December 2007, 2007, Jung filed a charge of issuing 106 false tax invoices worth KRW 1,026,105,00, including the instant tax invoice, to the Plaintiff, etc.

However, with respect to the above suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the prosecution decided on Nov. 26, 2008 that "No evidence exists to acknowledge the suspected fact" on the ground that "No evidence exists to prove that the content of each statement and part of the register of the representative companies, including the representative director of the plaintiff who was investigated by the witness, were actually supplied to the relevant company, and that "no evidence exists to acknowledge the suspected fact" was presented to the 29 companies, including the plaintiff, during the period from July 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005.

(3) On December 30, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition to the Defendant on December 30, 2008, and submitted a written confirmation of the fact of transaction, a statement of parts transaction, a statement of transaction, a statement of transaction, a deposit sheet, a cash receipt, a cash receipt, and a copy of the cash receipt book on the pertinent transaction date prepared

(4) On January 16, 2009, the Defendant: (a) did not have any evidentiary document proving objective payment among the above data submitted by the Plaintiff; (b) did not verify that the content of the tax invoice is considerably specific, consistent with the date and amount of the transaction; (c) in the event that the tax invoice of this case is deemed a processing transaction and denies the input tax amount, the average purchase amount of parts on January and March 2005 falls short of the monthly average purchase amount of parts of the Plaintiff Company (100,000 to 110,000 won per vehicle) and the monthly average purchase amount of parts of the same type of business (90,000 to 1,000,000 won per vehicle); and (d) demanded the Plaintiff to submit additional documents on three-month original transaction statement of the cash account book, the inventory receipt ledger of parts, and the vehicle access control register.

(5) After that, the Plaintiff submitted cash receipts and disbursements in electronic form on the grounds that the original cash receipts and disbursements were discarded, and there was no relevant account transaction details that can be submitted by cash payment for the automobile parts, and the vehicle access control ledger was not submitted on the grounds that the documents were not prepared. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have prepared the cash receipts and disbursements in electronic form after the fact that the amount on the cash receipts and disbursements in electronic form is the same, but the date of preparation cannot be objective evidence to support the normal transaction.

(6) On the other hand, the disbursement details of the automobile parts cost of the Plaintiff Company by January 3, 2004, 2005, and 2006 (in the case of 2005, including the amount of the instant tax invoice) are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 7, 8 evidence, Eul evidence 3 through 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole of video pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact, so in principle, the tax authority shall bear the burden of proving necessary expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, insofar as there are special circumstances such as where the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was proved to be false without real transactions, the tax authority must prove that it is reasonable to determine whether it is real expenses, and where it is proved to the extent that the taxpayer's assertion and the other party to the payment was proved to be false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du16406, Apr.

(2) However, in the case of this case, in full view of the following circumstances, which can be seen by the respective descriptions of facts as seen earlier and the evidence of Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, and 3 through 11 (including various numbers) and the overall purport of the film and video, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case should be dismissed on the premise that the aforementioned circumstances were proved.

(A) The contents of the statement of parts transaction, statement of transaction, deposit sheet, disbursement statement, cash receipt and disbursement statement, and written confirmation of transaction of the instant disposition are consistent with the date and amount of transaction indicated in the instant tax invoice. In light of the difference between the date of preparation of disbursement and cash statement, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the date of preparation is different after the approval of the disbursement was made as of the last day of each month or after the execution of expenses after the disbursement of the disbursement, is mutually acceptable.

(B) The contents of the cash receipts and disbursements book prepared on the hand, and the cash receipts and disbursements book prepared on the hand, and even if the Plaintiff later prepared the cash book on the corresponding date on the hand, it can be seen that they were prepared on the basis of cash receipts and disbursements book or cash table prepared on the basis of computer. In addition, in 2005, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff mainly held cash did not have any transaction details by paying the car parts in cash, because it was before the credit card settlement on the taxi fares was simplified, is also reasonable. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant failed to keep the documentary evidence related to the purchase, or that the instant tax invoice was prepared on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff failed to submit the ledger on the cash receipts and disbursements book, the parts inventory receipt book, and vehicle access control book prepared on the hand of the period for which

(C) As to the instant tax invoice, etc., the Court: (a) as a result of the prosecutor’s investigation, rendered a decision that “AA” which was accused of the material due to the lack of evidence, along with his wife, who is the person in charge of accounting.

(D) In the event that the input tax amount is denied on the grounds that the instant tax invoice was processed transaction, the monthly average purchase amount of parts of the Plaintiff company (7,856,600 won to KRW 37,856,60 to KRW 7,755,50 ( KRW 37,856,600 to KRW 30,101,100) and the monthly average of parts of the same type of business in 2004 and 2006 is less than that of the instant tax invoice. In this case, the monthly average purchase amount of parts is 22,285 won (=7,755,500 to KRW 7,500 to KRW 116,300, KRW 110, KRW 100 to KRW 110,000 per vehicle) and the monthly average of parts of the same type of business in the Plaintiff company (one hundred to KRW 100,000 per vehicle).

(E) There is no particular history of tax evasion by the Plaintiff’s operation of taxi passenger transport business for a period of 30 years or longer and by delivery of a false tax invoice.

3. Conclusion

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