The legitimacy of the assertion that the purchase tax invoice received from the data was a real transaction

In light of the fact that the representative on the data received a decision on suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the fact that the Defendant changed the amount of charges on the purchase tax invoice of this case by deeming that there was an actual transaction on the amount corresponding to the purchase tax invoice of this case, and the fact that the deposit slip, etc. presented by the Plaintiff was in the same form as the deposit sheet

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. On March 3, 2006, the Defendant’s disposition of additional value-added tax of KRW 6,002,105, value-added tax of KRW 5,968,022, and value-added tax of KRW 1, 2001 against the Plaintiff was revoked in entirety.

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;

A. From February 200 to January 2002, the Plaintiff, who runs the wholesale business such as amnesty company, etc. with the trade name of '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the taxable period of the value-added tax for the first period of the value-added tax from 252,930,000 won in total, 15 tax invoices of 15 (2: 57,782,000 won in 2000, 32,723,000 won in 201: 32,798,000 won in 201: 10,798,000 won in 200, and 61,627,000 won in 20) and filed a value-added tax return for each taxable period.

B. On March 3, 2006, the Defendant: 152,289,00 won (two years: 57,781,000 won; 1 year: 32,723,000 won; 25,598,000 won: 1 year: 36,187,000 won; 26,000 won; 36,187,000 won) out of the above tax invoice were deemed to be a false tax invoice without real transaction; 206,7,382,00 won in the above tax invoice; 208,769, 200 won in the above tax invoice; 36,000 won in the above tax invoice; 205, 207, 209, 209, 2005 won in the above tax invoice; 365,000 won in each of the above tax invoice; 206,005 won in the above tax invoice.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence 1 inherent 4, 4

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant tax invoice is related to a normal transaction that the Plaintiff purchased the actual amnesty, etc. from the non-party company and received after paying the purchase amount, the instant disposition that imposes value-added tax on the grounds that it is deemed as a false tax invoice and thus deducted the input tax amount, etc. is unlawful.

B. Determination

In principle, the burden of proving whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, or the value of supply, which is a tax base, is located in the taxation authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992): Provided, That if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement, unless it proves that the pertinent facts are not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1998).

According to the above legal principles as to whether the tax invoice of this case is different from the facts, the representative director of the non-party company 2 and 3 was accused of tax evasion, such as the issuance of a false tax invoice to 16 companies including the plaintiff, etc. without any value added tax, and as a result, it is not confirmed that the cash equivalent to the purchase amount of the above 15 tax invoice was directly deposited in the non-party company, but it cannot be found that the above 1 through 8, Eul (including above 4) and the whole pleadings were stated on the 000 tax invoice. The non-party 200 tax invoice was stated on May 18, 2006 that the non-party 200 won was not suspected of violating the above Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 did not directly deposit the above 00 tax invoice. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were found to have not been found to have been aware of the fact that the above 100 tax invoice was not deposited.

3. Conclusion

If so, the disposition of this case is unlawful and revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The internal calendar table;

(unit: 1,00 won)**

Category of Flag

Tax Invoice

Value of Supply

The amount recognized as normal transactions;

Processing Transaction Amount

Non-Party Company

Amount of investigation recognition

Additional

Amount of recognition

Determination of National Tax Adjudication

Amount recognized*

guidance.

2, 200

57,782

29,454

29,454

28,328

1, 2001

32,723

3,364

3,364

29,359

201. 2

100,798

65,200

10,000

32,435

107,635

△△6,837

1, 2002

61,627

25,440

10,492

35,932

25,695

252,930

90,640

10,000

75,745*

176,385

83,382**

* In this regard, the National Tax Tribunal has collectively deducted the amount that the Plaintiff recognized as having actually paid to the non-party company from the total amount of tax invoices for each taxable period.

* Proceeds from supply 83,320,000

**** Transfer-in due to anti-influence, etc. of an amount of less than 100 won.

*** Proceeds from supply 91,720,200 won