Whether the input tax invoice delivered from the data is deducted;

A tax invoice received without real transactions shall not be eligible for input tax deduction.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,006,280 for the first period of 2003 against the Plaintiff on October 02, 2005 and value-added tax of KRW 51,84,950 for the second period of 2 years of the same year shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is running a wholesale and retail business of semiconductor parts from October 21, 2000.

B. On October 02, 2005, the Defendant issued the sales tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff on ○○com and ○○ Trade Co., Ltd. at the second half of 2003 and the sales tax invoice issued from ○○ Information and Communications and ○○ System between January 2003 and February 2, 2003, excluded the sales supply price from the output tax amount on the ground that the purchase supply price was different from the fact that the purchase tax invoice was issued without real transaction, and imposed value added tax (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff by deducting the purchase supply price from the input tax amount.

Gu Sector

Between the world and the world;

Mack Hack

T. M. M.C.

Value of supply (cost)

Sales

203

03.10.06

○○commen

610,000,000

o October 10, 2003

○○commen

30,000,000

203.08.21

Co., Ltd.

101,000,000

203.09.30

Co., Ltd.

80,000,000

Consolidateds

1,121,000,000

Purchase

1, 2003

03.04.30

○○ Information and Communications

6,392,100

03.05.27

○○ Information and Communications

4,474,200

03.06.30

○○ Information and Communications

2,896,170

Sub-committees

13,762,00

203

03.07.31

○○ Information and Communications

1,350,000

203.08.29

○○ Information and Communications

96,589,000

203.09.30

○○ Information and Communications

9,702,730

203.09.30

○○ Information and Communications

75,225,000

o October 31, 2003

○○ Information and Communications

596,857,00

November 26, 2003

○○ Information and Communications

13,962,500

November 28, 2003

○○ Information and Communications

14,963,410

o October 06, 2003

○○시스텝

318,100,000

o October 31, 2003

○ System

14,927,00

November 28, 2003

○ System

15,328,000

December 31, 2003

○ System

19,870,000

Sub-committees

1,176,873,000

Consolidateds

1,190,635,000

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 2-2, Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 17-2, Evidence No. 22-1, Evidence No. 1-2, and Evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of legality of disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Part of the sales tax invoice

○○comer and ○○ Trade Co., Ltd. entered in the same transaction as the sales tax invoice, and KRW 512,50,010 of the price was paid in cash, KRW 703,250,000, respectively.

(2) Purchase tax invoice portion

In fact, between ○○ Information and Communications Co., Ltd and ○○ System, the same transaction was entered in the purchase tax invoice, and KRW 275,138,603 out of the price was paid in cash, KRW 632,85,000 as a bill.

(b) Related statutes;

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (1) The amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be

Article 21 (Determination and Correction ① The head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or the tax amount

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

C. Determination

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that it conforms to his own assertion in light of the status of easy presentation of evidence and materials related to the defendant's disposition, who is the taxpayer claiming that the tax invoice is not false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(4) Although ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not required to submit the purchase price under the name of 6, 10-1 through 10, 16, 23-1, 3-4, 6, 7-2, and 1-3 of the Plaintiff’s total statement in the name of 203, 65, 100, 100, 204, and 200, 300,000 won were not required to receive the purchase price under the name of 6○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 5,00,000, 18,000,000 won, and 203,000,000 won, based on the following facts.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that each of the tax invoices of this case is accompanied by real transactions in light of the following: (a) although the Defendant accused the Defendant on the data of the instant case, it did not have any criminal punishment regarding the instant case; and (b) the Plaintiff provided sampling for the optical communications business promoted by the Korea Trade Corporation ○○○.

According to the evidence evidence of evidence Nos. 12, 25, and 27, the tax authorities deemed the processed sales in 2002 and 2003 of 200 million won of 200 and 8 billion won of 2003, and filed an accusation with ○○○ as data. The crime was punished for issuing a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 906,719,90 in the name of ○○ Information and Communications, but the part of the crime was not included in the transaction with the Plaintiff. However, in light of the above recognition circumstances and evidence No. 11, 27, Eul’s evidence No. 10, and Eul’s evidence No. 1003, it is difficult to acknowledge that the average value added ratio of ○○○○○ was considerably lower than the average of 29.9%, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s false tax invoice No. 20097,69,709, and there is no reason to acknowledge it under the name of the Plaintiff’s witness.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.