Seocho 208west 3759 (209.02.09)

Where the evaded tax amount has not been reduced due to the occurrence of processing sales and processing purchases, the exclusion period of imposition;

The result of the refund of the amount of tax evaded through the processing purchase occurs even if the amount of tax evaded has not been refunded due to the occurrence of the processing sales and the processing purchase amount, and the result of the illegal refund of the transaction partner by the processing sales. Therefore, the exclusion period of 10 years is applied because it constitutes a case where the national tax is deducted due to fraud or other illegal acts.

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

Article 22 (Additional Tax)

Article 26-2 (Period for Excluding Assessment of National Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 115,410,530 on August 7, 2008 against the Plaintiff on August 7, 2008 (which appears to be a clerical error on September 1, 2008 of the written complaint) shall be revoked in the aggregate of the value-added taxes on the second, 201 and the first and second, 202.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2001년 제2기부터 2002년 제2기까지의 부가가치세 과세기간 중 실물거래 없이 주식회사 ★★★구로지점 외 6개 업체로부터 공급가액 2,889,260,000원의 매입세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 매입세금계산서'라고 한다)를 수취하고, 주식회사 ☆☆게이트 외 4개 업체에 공급가액 2,891,260,000원의 매출세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 매출세금계산 서'라고 한다)를 교부하여 이에 따른 부가가치세를 신고하였다.

B. Accordingly, on August 7, 2008, the Defendant imposed the sum of 115,410,530 won of the value-added tax on the grounds that the entry in the sales office and the list of the total tax invoice by customer in the taxable period of the value-added tax was mistakenly recorded (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfed Facts, Evidence Nos. 2-4, Evidence Nos. 1-3 (including separate serial numbers), the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s return of processing sales and processing sales to almost the same extent that there is no amount of tax that actually evades value-added tax or unfairly refunded or deducted. In such a case, it does not fall under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes to which the exclusion period of imposition of national taxes applies for the ten-year period. As such, the instant disposition is unlawful since it was imposed with the exclusion period of imposition of national taxes.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and developing security software, was engaged in processing transactions that issue sales tax invoices without supplying actual services or goods or receive tax invoices without being supplied with actual services or goods for the purpose of delaying the collection of claims from investors after the IMF financial crisis.

(2) 원고가 2001년 제2기부터 2004년 제2기까지의 부가가치세 과세기간 동안 아래와 같이 실물거래 없이 주식회사 ★★★구로지점 외 13개 업체로부터 합계 53억 7,226만 원 상당의 가공매입세금계산서를 수취하여 부당하게 매입세액을 공제받고, 같은 기간 동안 실물거래 없이 주식회사 ☆☆게이트 외 11개 업체에 합계 53억 7,426만 원 상당의 가공매출세금계산서를 교부하였다.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 4-6 (including each of the natural disasters) and the purport of the whole of the legal arguments

D. Determination

According to the above facts, even though there is no amount of tax evaded after the Plaintiff received or deducted the processed sales or purchase tax invoices of almost the same amount, the Plaintiff’s return was made in excess of the total amount of the purchase tax on the processed sales or purchase tax invoices by duly receiving the purchase tax invoices of this case. As long as the Plaintiff filed a return on the input tax invoice including the input tax amount with a trader that issued the processed sales or purchase tax invoices of this case, so long as the Plaintiff unfairly received the input tax amount due to the Plaintiff’s return on the input tax invoice of this case, it constitutes a case of receiving the purchase tax invoices of this case without real transactions and receiving the input tax amount from the input tax amount and receiving the input tax amount deduction by fraudulent or other unlawful acts under Article 26-2(1)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8139 of Dec. 30, 206). Accordingly, the exclusion period for the imposition of the value-added tax on the second-year basis of the return date of value-added tax on January 26, 2002>

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's proposal that the exclusion period of the imposition of the value-added tax on the plaintiff is five years, and the disposition of this case is reasonable.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit, so it is decided as identical with the order.