Whether gold bullion was actually purchased or not;

It is highly probable that it is a false tax invoice, while it is not sufficient to prove that it is a real transaction because it is highly probable that it is a false tax invoice, and it is not possible to prove that it is a real transaction.

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

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 11,681,300 against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2006 shall be revoked.

Purport of appeal

same as the entry.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the purport of the whole pleadings in the items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 17, 18-1, 2, and 1.

A. The Plaintiff’s business operator, who is engaged in gold farming and processing business with the trade name of “Seoul-dong 490-○○○○,” was a businessman who is engaged in gold farming and processing business, and was issued a purchase tax invoice, which is the purchase tax invoice, which is the value-added tax (hereinafter “tax invoice of this case”), 5,000g unit price per kilogram, 11,321,212 won per kilogram, 56,60, 60, 5,606, 60, 60, total tax amount, 62,666, 662, 662, 6662, 6666, and total amount of value-added tax (hereinafter “the tax invoice of this case”) on July 27, 2001.

B. On November 16, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data (including additional tax) that a tax invoice was issued by the director of the tax office of Seodaemun-gu without real transaction, and notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data that the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice (including a person in need of a tax invoice that is tax-free data for the occupation of selling the tax, or a person engaged in the occupation of selling the tax). The Defendant did not regard the instant tax invoice as a different tax invoice from the fact that it was issued without real transaction, and did not deduct the relevant input tax amount, thereby notifying the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax amounting to KRW 11,681,300 (including additional tax) for

C. On February 5, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal as the District Tribunal Decision 2007Da468 on the instant disposition, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on June 7, 2007.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even though the Plaintiff actually purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from ○○○ △△△, and deposited all of the proceeds into the account of ○○ △△△△△, it was unlawful for the Defendant’s disposition that concluded that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice on the sole ground that the Plaintiff was a business suspected of being accused of committing a criminal charge on data without undergoing a specific investigation or confirmation with the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2 through Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 15-1, 2, 3, and 4.

(1) On March 5, 2001, 00, 000 won was established by ○○○○ on March 5, 2001 for wholesale and retail business, and ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. purchased from ○○○○ Co., Ltd., 27,248,000,000 won, 17,03,000 won from ○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., 12,404,000,000 won, ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., 6,581,000,000 won from ○○○ Co., Ltd., and 224,000,000 won from ○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., and 114,000,000 won from ○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., and filed a report thereon to the Plaintiff’s head of tax office at present.

D. The tax office's investigation results show that ○○○○ Partnership was purchased from ○○ Commercial Co., Ltd. without any purchase at all, and ○○ Commercial Co., Ltd. is the data merchant who purchased the present, etc. on April 30, 2001, which was closed ex officio on June 30, 2001, which was 2 months and later, issued only sales tax invoices without actual supply of goods during the pertinent business period. ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. is the data merchant. The data merchant who purchased the present ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. and the ○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. are the data merchant who purchased the present ○○○ Co., Ltd. from 201, which became the data merchant, and ○○○○ Co., Ltd. was the data merchant who purchased the present ○○○ Co., Ltd. from 2001, 200, 300, 206, 2006.

(1) ○○○○○○○○○○○ △△△ ””in addition, the amount of KRW 214,036,000 from January 1 to June 30, 2003 ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○).

x ○○○○○ ice reduced the sales turnover of KRW 500,000,000 in the sales turnover of KRW 102,300,000,000 in the year 2001, KRW 238,100,000 in the sales turnover of KRW 200,000 in the year 202, and KRW 214,200,000 in the sales turnover of KRW 214,200,000 in the year 203, and the sales turnover of KRW 200,000,00 in the second half year 2003 began to conduct a tax investigation on false tax invoices, the sales turnover of KRW 200,000 in the sales turnover of KRW 20,00 in the year 203.

(v) Around 16:01 on July 27, 2001, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 62,266,666 in cash with an account without passbook. The said money was withdrawn in cash from KRW 150,000 to the said account by another company (○○○○○○○○ Child, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, etc.) on the same day. Around 16:03 on the same day, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 123,73,000 to the said account by Internet banking, and around 16:46 on the same day, KRW 150,000 was withdrawn in cash.

D. The judgment of this Court

In principle, since the burden of proving that a tax invoice is false and correct, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the circumstances with regard to it. If the defendant has proved to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to dispute the illegality of the defendant's disposition to present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

According to the above facts, it appears that the tax invoice of this case was a material that did not actually trade real property. In particular, the purchase reported during the second period of value-added tax 2001 was processed and purchased, and in light of the fact that all the ○○○○ and five companies that purchased the tax invoice of this case were revealed as material, it is reasonable to prove that the tax invoice of this case was false. Therefore, even if the plaintiff who is in the position of easy to present relevant evidence and material was in most false, the tax invoice of this case issued by the ○○○○○○○△△△, which was issued by him, should be proved exceptionally that the tax invoice of this case was a true tax invoice accompanied by the real transaction, and whether it is or not.

The Plaintiff asserts that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a sales agent of ○○○○○○○○○ on July 27, 2001, as seen above, received the instant tax invoice from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, at the time of confirming whether there was a true product, and received the instant tax invoice from ○○○○○○○○○○○.

그러나 원고의 위 주장에 부합하는 제1심증인 박○○, 박○○의 각 일부 증언은 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 원고가 제출한 2001. 1.경부터 2005.12.경까지의 매출장(갑9호증 내지 갑13호증의 각2)에 의하면, 원고가 2001. 10. 31. ○미에게 2,133,500원 상당의 귀금속(팔찌)을 공급한 것을 시작으로 2002. 6.경까지, 2003. 1.경부터 4.경까지, 2003. 10.경부터 12.경까지 매달 1,074,700원에서 2,430,000원 상당의 귀금속을 공급한 것으로만 되어 있어 원고 주장의 지금구입 규모 등에 비추어 ○미를 ○○사의 서울지역 판매대리점이었다고 보기 어려운 점, 원고가 제출한 ○대통상과의 협정서(갑23호증)에 의하면, 원고는 1998. 10. 1. 주식회사 ○대통상 부산지사와 사이에 원고와 대리점인 ○○쥬얼리(주소: 서울 ○○구 ○○○가 ○○번지 ○○○ 쥬얼랜드 ○○호)간에 매일 왕래하는 행낭(무엇을 넣어서 보내는 큰 주머니)에 관한 운송계약을 체결한 것으로 되어 있어, 원고가 자신의 서울지역 판매대리점으로 주장하는 ○미와 위 협정서에 나타난 대리점의 상호와 주소가 다르고, 위 협정서의 유효기간이 6개월로만 되어 있어 위 협정서를 이 사건 세금계산서 발급 당시 원고와 ○미간의 상품운송에 관한 계약서로 보기 어려운 점(그럼에도 원고는 이 사건 세금계산서 발급 당시의 상품운송계약서를 제출하지 아니하고 있다) 등에 비추어 빋지 아니한다.

However, as seen earlier, it is true that the Plaintiff deposited money into the account of ○○○○○○○○○○○ ice after receiving the tax invoice of this case, or that the Plaintiff submitted the account books such as the receipts and disbursements (the date of entry, the date of entry, the amount of entry, and the quantity of stock) to verify the relationship of receipts and disbursements, or did not present any other objective evidence on the receipt of the current account; the Plaintiff’s business behavior between ○○○ △○ ju ice and the money deposited by another company was combined with the money deposited by the Plaintiff to the total amount of KRW 273,73,00 and KRW 273,73,00 and the money deposited by the Plaintiff was transferred to the account of ○○○ ○○ △○○ ”○○ ”○ 6,000, no more than the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive money from 666,000,0000 of the money deposited in the account of the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the account of this case (the Plaintiff’s deposit account of this case).

Therefore, the instant tax invoice is highly likely to be a false tax invoice, while it is not sufficient to prove that it is true by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Busan District Court Decision 2007Guhap2761 (Law No. 24, 2008)

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 11,681,300 against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2006 shall be 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. The Plaintiff, a business operator operating a gold industry with the trade name of "○○○○○-dong 000-0 in Busan Geum-gu, 000," and on July 27, 2001, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case") with the total amount of KRW 5,000 per 11,321,321,212 per 1g, supply price of KRW 56,60,06,060, and the total amount of KRW 62,26,666,666, and the total amount of KRW 62,266,66,00 from the output tax amount to the input tax amount, deducted the value-added tax amount under the tax invoice of this case as the input tax amount and reported and paid the value-added tax for 201.

B. On November 16, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data that it issued a tax invoice without real transaction, and deemed the instant tax invoice as a different tax invoice from the fact that it was issued without real transaction and deducted the relevant input tax amount. On November 16, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax amount of KRW 11,681,300 (including additional tax) for the second term portion of value-added tax for 2001 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the plaintiff actually purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the tax invoice of this case from ○○t Mice and deposited all of its price into the account of ○○ juice, it was unlawful for the defendant's disposition of this case that concluded that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without a real transaction just because the plaintiff was a business suspected of being accused of material facts without undergoing specific investigation or confirmation against the plaintiff.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice prepared without real transaction.

(B) Even if a domestic or real transaction occurred, the actual place of business of 00 juice is 'Seoul Jongno-gu ○○○○○○○○○3, Seoul's place of business is '65-14', and the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice different from the fact, and the input tax amount is not subject to the deduction of value-added tax.

(C) Therefore, the instant disposition, which did not deduct the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice, is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether a false tax invoice without real transaction is a false tax invoice

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, in principle, at the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992): Provided, that only where the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, the other party can only be able to prove the circumstances that the pertinent facts in question cannot be subject to the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13,

(5) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., and by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., and exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., and by exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., nor by exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to ○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., as alleged in the ground of appeal.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the supplier’s address is impossible to deduct the input tax due to false representation

Article 16(1)1 through 4 and Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the necessary entry items in the tax invoice issued by the taxpayer, namely, the registration number, name or title, the registration number, value-added tax number, and value-added tax amount of the supplier, and all or part of the date of preparation, are differently entered from the facts. The address of the supplier who falsely entered in the tax invoice of this case is merely an arbitrary entry item that does not constitute the necessary entry items in the above tax invoice, and thus, even if such false entry is entered, the tax invoice of this case does not constitute an input tax invoice that cannot be deducted from the input tax amount. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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