The propriety of the disposition of tax invoice not to deduct the input tax amount received from the data.

Since the entrepreneur who issued a tax invoice is confirmed as 100% data and does not prove the fact that the real transaction was made in detail, the taxation disposition is legitimate.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Although all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined, the argument on the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

[Seoul High Court 2007Nu3755 (Law No. 11, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 8,973,00 for the second term of 201, value-added tax against the plaintiff on June 2, 2006, and KRW 14,461,460 for the first term of 202, and KRW 4,365,170 for the second term of 202 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "A review of the above facts of recognition" in the fourth, fourth, and nine of the judgments of the court of first instance, in full view of the fact that "the above facts were recognized and the plaintiff was not able to submit the sales data, etc. on its own sales place until now," and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap2789]

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 8,973,00 for the second term of 201, the first term of 2002, the second term of 14,461,460 for the first term of 202, and the second term of 2002, the third65,170 for the second term of 202 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1 through 4:

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who runs the wholesale business in the name of ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○ ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○ ○○○ ○○-dong ○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○

B. The Plaintiff received respectively a tax invoice of KRW 45,500,000 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) in the second taxable period of value-added tax, the total value-added tax amount of KRW 75,973,00 in the first taxable period of value-added tax, and the total value-added tax amount of KRW 24,097,00 in the second taxable period of value-added tax, and filed a tax invoice of KRW 200,00 in the second taxable period of value-added tax (hereinafter the “instant tax invoice”), respectively, by deducting the value-added tax amount from the value-added tax amount.

C. On June 2, 2006, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction for the second term portion of value-added tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), KRW 8,973,00 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2001, KRW 14,461,460 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 202, and value-added tax 4,365,170 for the second term portion of value-added tax in 202, respectively (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

D. On August 18, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, which was dismissed on June 27, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff purchased the instant tax invoice from ○○○○○ and paid the price in full, it is clear that the instant tax invoice was made through a normal transaction, and therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the instant tax invoice, premised on the receipt of the instant tax invoice through a processing transaction without a real transaction, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Tax amount payable under Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6905 of May 29, 2003)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under 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 a 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 taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, excluding the input tax amount in such

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 excluded;

○ Correction of Article 21 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6905 of May 29, 2003)

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall correct the tax base or tax amount payable for the taxable period

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

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

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

4. Where there is a possibility of evading the value-added tax due to the causes as determined by the Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

(2) Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service revises the tax base and amount of tax refund for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall correct it on the basis of tax invoices, books and other evidence:

1. Where tax invoices, books, and other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base do not exist or important parts are incomplete;

2. Where the contents of tax invoices, books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the scale of facilities, the number of employees, and the market prices of raw materials, commodities, products, or various charges;

3. Where the contents of tax invoices, account books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the quantity of raw materials used, power used, and other operational conditions.

Article 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6905 of May 29, 2003)

(4) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, 1/100 in case of an individual, or an amount equivalent to 2/100 in case of a corporation, which is entered excessively differently from the facts in the list of the list of the total tax invoices by customer by customer, which are entered in the list of the total tax invoices by customer, or in the list of the total tax invoices by customer submitted, shall be added to the payable tax amount, or deducted from the refundable tax amount: Provided, That this shall not apply to the supply amount of the

1. Where the input tax amount is deducted under the proviso of Article 17 (2) 1-2, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree; and

2. Where the list of the total tax invoice by customer under Article 20 (1) and (2) is not submitted, or the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by customer in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered, or entered differently from the fact: Provided, That such cases as prescribed by

3. Where the supply value in the entry of the list of the total tax invoice by customer submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), which is entered excessively differently from the fact, is returned.

(5) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the amount prescribed in the relevant subparagraphs shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount:

1. The amount equivalent to 10/100 of the payable amount not declared (the relevant insufficient amount paid) and of the refundable amount declared in excess, in case where the declared tax amount falls short of the payable amount to be declared, or of the refundable amount to be declared, under Article 18 (1) and (2) (proviso) or 19 (1); and

2. Where the tax amount is not paid under Article 18 (4) or 19 (2) or paid falls short of the payable tax amount, an amount calculated by applying the following formula:

The interest rate as determined by the Presidential Decree in consideration of the interest rate applied by X-financial institutions to overdue loans during the period from the date following the payment deadline of X to the date preceding the date of voluntary payment or the date of payment notice.

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the 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 is consistent with his/her own assertion in light of the position that it is easy to present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff who is the taxpayer who disputes the illegality of the defendant's disposition, by asserting that the tax invoice is not false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to this case’s health stand, YY 2, and 3 evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the tax invoice was received from March 5, 2001 to December 31, 2003 from ○ System Co., Ltd., but the above purchaser was most punished or accused, and the remaining transactions were revealed to be abnormal transactions in light of the details of financial transaction. ○○ juju issued tax invoice to ○○○○○○○, etc. from the first half of 201 to the second half of 203, the tax invoice was issued to 1 to 603, and most of the above sales offices (81.3% of sales revenue) were identified as the representative of the company Gap’s 1 to 17, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the remaining transaction was a real transaction of 1 to 4,000 to 1,000 evidence of actual evidence No. 71 to 201.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the instant tax invoice as a processed tax invoice is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s allegation disputing this is not acceptable.

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.