Cho Jae-2015-China477 ( December 31, 2015)

The instant tax invoice constitutes a processed tax invoice.

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a processing tax invoice and the initial disposition, which is non-deductible input tax amount and non-deductible tax amount, is legitimate.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

2016Guhap7380 Such revocation as corporate tax, etc.

OOOO

O Head of tax office

2016.08.16

2016.09.27

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On May 4, 2015, the Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax and value-added tax OOOO on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established around O.O.O. around 2003 for the purpose of manufacturing electronic parts, such as mobile phone parts, and wholesale and retail business. AA is a company registered as a business operator (type of business: e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e

B. On May 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) regarded the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without real transaction; and (b) did not include it in deductible expenses; and (c) rendered each of the instant dispositions imposing KRW OO of value-added tax for the Plaintiff in 2012 and KRW OO of corporate tax for the business year 2012 on the Plaintiff.

C. On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 17, 2015, but was dismissed on December 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

1) As an OO or an O or an O or an employee paid for assets unrelated to business affairs, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this part.

(2).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice issued according to the actual transaction between the Plaintiff and AA. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions on different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged through the overall purport of each entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 2 through 7 (including documentary evidence attached with serial number) are ① there is no objective data, such as the date of supply of the tax invoice of this case, and bank account transaction details corresponding to the price; ② there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid personnel expenses to EE that he/she dispatched his/her employees DoD or employees; ③ rather, it appears that the Plaintiff would have borne expenses, such as the machinery rent and personnel expenses to be borne by AA; ③ AAA was closed after the opening of the OO on March 20, 2012; ④ The Plaintiff’s representative BB did not have any other transaction parties other than the Plaintiff; ④ the Plaintiff’s sales transaction stated in the tax invoice of this case on March 20, 2015, which was entered in the tax invoice No. 201 to 2000, the Plaintiff’s revised tax invoice No. 130, supra, did not have any specific reasons to prove its credibility.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.