Cho High Court Decision 2010Du0784 (Law No. 24, 2010)

Whether a tax invoice for the processing that is not a real transaction related to the purchase of gold bullion has been received

It cannot be readily concluded that the sales of the Plaintiff by the transaction partner issued the processed sales tax invoice without the actual transaction of gold bullion solely on the ground that the transaction partner was investigated as data or traded as an intermediary for gold bullion trade.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 14,584,730 on August 10, 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 10, 200 shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of imposition;

가. 원고는 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 168에 있는 ☆☆빌딩 매장 1호에서 '◇◇인'이라는 상호로 귀금속 도매업을 해 오던 중, ◆◆귀금속 주식회사(2008. 2. 1. 상호를 △△귀금속 주식회사로 변경하였다. 이하 '소외 회사'라 한다)로부터 2007년 제2기 과세기간 중 공급가액 합계 97,357,315원(부가가치세 포함)인 금지금(金地金) 매입세금계산서 3 장(이하 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라 한다)을 수취한 후, 2007년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 이 사건 각 세금계산서의 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하였다.

B. On August 10, 2009, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 14,584,730 for the second period of 2007, on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was false tax invoices for which no real transaction was conducted (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 2, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 24, 2010.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

Since the Plaintiff actually purchased gold bullion from the non-party company and paid the price in full, each of the tax invoices of this case is a normal transaction. The Defendant’s disposition of this case, which was made on a different premise, is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The details of each of the instant tax invoices, the transportation date of gold bullion by the non-party company, the date of payment by the Plaintiff, etc. are as follows.

(2) In order to obtain gold bullion from the non-party company, the Plaintiff confirmed the copy of the non-party company’s business registration certificate, the representative director’s name, the certified transcript of corporate register, and the certificate of corporate seal impression, and received the above documents from the non-party company.

(3) When trading with the non-party company, the Plaintiff received the cargo delivery certificate, the certificate of sale of goods, and the statement of transaction with the non-party company, and paid the price for the goods by transferring it to the bank account of the non-party company or remitting it to the telebank.

"(4) 성북세무서장은 2008. 8. 6.부터2008. 10. 17.까지 소외 회사에 대한 자료상혐의 를 조사한 결과, 2002. 5. 8. 개업한 소외 회사는 2006. 1. 1.부터 2008. 9. 30.까지 사이에 주식회사 ▽▽주얼리, 유한회사 ●●드 등 부가가치세 횡령업체(일명 '폭탄업체')를 거쳐 주식회사 ▲▲헬스 외 17개 업체로부터 가공매입세금계산서(공급가액 합계 31,851,000,000원)를 교부받아 다시 원고와 같은 90여개의 귀금속 도 ・ 소매업체에게 정상거래인 것처럼 위장하여 가공매출세금계산서(공급가액 합계31,941,000,000원)를 교부하여 관련 매입세액을 환급받을 수 있도록 거래중개역할을 하는 소위 '도관업체' 역할을 한 것으로 조사되었다.",(5) 이에 따라 성북세무서장은 소외 회사의 2006. 1. 1.부터 2008. 9. 30.까지의 매출 및 매입 전부가 가공이라고 보아 원고를 포함하여 소외 회사와 세금계산서를 수수한 거래처에 대하여 해당 과세관청에 과세자료를 통보하였고, ○○중앙지방검찰청에 소외 회사 및 그 대표이사 강AA 등을 조세범처벌법위반 혐의로 고발하였다.

(6) On December 18, 2009, the ○○ Central District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition without suspicion on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient to prove the above Gangwon.

(7) On the other hand, when investigating the facts charged as to the non-party company of the head of Seongbuk-gu Tax Office, the representative director of the non-party company made a statement that the non-party company purchased and sold gold (the so-called "refined gold") from the general public or high-ranking seller without purchase data, and even the data survey report (Evidence No. 3) prepared by the investigating public official, the non-party company purchased and sold gold (the so-called "refined gold") from the non-party company's sales office with no data from the non-registered intermediary (the so-called Gadama) in the case of the non-party company's sales office, and the non-party company purchased and sold gold without data (the end of the above investigation statement contains no credibility in the statement of the Jung-gu that the non-party company made the real transaction due to the non-party

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (including each number), Eul 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

C. Determination

(1) As a matter of principle, the burden of proof regarding the facts of taxation requirements is imposed on the tax authority. The tax invoice on the input tax amount reported by the taxpayer after deducting the tax authority is proved to have been falsely prepared without real transactions by the defendant who is the tax authority, and it is disputed whether it was caused by real transactions, and the taxpayer's transaction claiming that it was a real transaction and the counterpart to the transaction should be proved to the extent that it is reasonable to prove that it was false. However, the burden of proof should be converted to the fact that such purchase transaction was actually conducted, and it is easy for the taxpayer to present all data, such as the account book keeping

(2) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대,① 성북세무서장의 소외 회사에 대한 자료상혐의 조사 결과, 소외 회사의 매출 전부가 실제 거래 없이 매출세금계산서가 발행된 것으로 조사되기는 하였으나, 개별적으로 피고가 소외 회사와 원고 사이의 거래가 가공거래라는 사실을 명백히 밝히고 있지 못한 이 사건에 있어서, 소외 회사가 자료상으로 조사되었다거나 금지금 폭탄거래의 도관업체로서 거래하였다는 사정만으로는 소외 회사의 원고 에 대한 매출이 금지금의 실물거래 없이 가공의 매출세금계산서를 발행한 것이라고 단 정할 수는 없는 점,② 원고는 소외 회사가 속하였던 '폭탄영업'의 전형적 ・ 계속적인 거래 형태 중 한 단계에 속하는 이른바 '폭탄영업자'의 일원이었던 것으로 보이지는 않고 성북세무서장의 소외 회사에 대한 자료상 혐의조사결과에서도 이와 같은 사실은 확인되지 아니하였는바, 사정이 이러하다면 원고와 소외 회사 사이에 금지금의 매매계약이 체결되고 이에 따라 원고로부터 소외 회사로 송금을 통하여 대금이 지급된 것을 두고 실제거래로 위장하기 위한 명목에 불과하다고 단정하기도 어려운 점,③ 원고가 소외 회사에게 지급한 금지금 대금이 곧바로 폭탄업체인 주식회사 ♤♤스의 은행계좌에 입금되었다는 정황만으로 원고와 소외 회사 사이에 실물거래가 없었다고 보기 어려운 점(오히려 원고는 소외 회사가 무자료로 취득한 금을 매입하였을 가능성이 있다) 등의 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 을 3 내지 5호증의 각 기재만으로는 원고가 소외 회사와 금지금의 실물거래를 하지 아니하였다고 단정하기 어렵고, 달리 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 실물거래를 동반하지 아니한 허위의 세금계산서라고 인정할 만한 증거가

shall not be effective.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices is false, is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.