propriety of the disposition taken to exclude the claimed amount as cash transaction from necessary expenses from such processing transaction.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit since the plaintiff's proof of the expenses actually paid, such as account books and evidence, is insufficient to prove the relevant transaction.

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) of the Income Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of global income tax of KRW 68,729,440 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, under the trade name of “○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff, who runs an electronic component manufacturing business, included the total of KRW 163,457,00, and the total of the supply values in Chapter 15, 200, which was received from ○○○○○ (○○ Electric) in 2002 and 203, in the necessary expenses (hereinafter the instant tax invoice).

B. As a result, the head of ○○ Tax Office notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the instant tax invoice received from ○○○○ was based on the processing transaction, which led to the instant tax invoice received from ○○○○.

C. Accordingly, from January 24, 2005 to February 1, 2005, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to submit explanatory materials while conducting on-the-spot investigation with respect to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the transaction with Ma○○ was a justifiable real transaction and submitted explanatory materials that all of the transaction was conducted while submitting a written confirmation of the fact of transaction, a period of time, a statement of transaction, a statement of transaction, and a deposit slip, etc. regarding the transaction with Ma○○○, and again, the Plaintiff again asserted that the transaction was a cash transaction without submitting all the financial materials related to the transaction price by asserting that the transaction with Ma○○○ is not a

D. Accordingly, on April 1, 2005, the Defendant determined that all of the instant tax invoices were based on the processing transaction, and did not deduct them from the necessary expenses, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 77,152,190 for the global income tax year 2002 and KRW 3,446,830 for the year 203.

E. On June 22, 2005, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the National Tax Service. The National Tax Service recognized the Plaintiff’s deposit amount of KRW 31,260,450 ( KRW 7,989,000, KRW 23,260,450) over 12 occasions from April 23, 2002 to September 25, 2003, total amount of KRW 31,260,450 ( KRW 7,989,000, KRW 23,260,450, KRW 28,418,590 (= KRW 31,260, KRW 450, KRW 450) as the actual transaction amount, and revoked the amount of supply amount equivalent to KRW 28,418,590, KRW 260, KRW 208, KRW 208, KRW 2008, KRW 4000, KRW 2005.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap 1, Eul 1, 2-1, 2.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In fact, the Plaintiff purchased synthetic resin (P.V.C.), electric wires, and headings, and paid the price by means of transferring it to the account of Kim ○○○, his mother, at the request of ○○○○○○, in cash or by means of transfer. However, a tax invoice issued in the name of ○○○ (○○○ Electric Cable) is only issued in connection with the transaction. If the Plaintiff did not purchase the above raw materials from ○○○○ in the production of the air conditioners, etc., a large amount of raw materials such as synthetic resin was consumed in the production of the air conditioners, and the sales amount of 202 was KRW 931,472,353, and the sales amount of 202 was KRW 931,472,353, and it is difficult to achieve such sales, even if there is no financial materials on the payment of the price in cash, it should be recognized as necessary expenses. Accordingly, the instant disposition that did not recognize it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Income Tax Act

Article 27 (Calculation of Necessary Expenses) (1) In calculating real estate rental income, business income, temporary property income, other income, or forest income, the amount to be included in the necessary expenses shall be the sum of the expenses corresponding to the total amount of income in the current year and generally accepted.

(2) The expenses corresponding to the total amount of incomes in the current year, which are not appropriated as the necessary expenses prior to the current year, shall be considered the necessary expenses.

(3) Necessary matters for the calculation of necessary expenses shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

Article 74 (Inclusion of Value-Added Tax in Necessary Expenses) The term “tax amount in such cases as prescribed by the President” in Article 33 (1) 9 of the Act means any of the following subparagraphs:

2. Other input tax amounts verified by the business operator as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy.

Enforcement Rule of Income Tax Act

Article 39 (Inclusion of Purchase Tax of Value-Added Tax in Necessary Expenses) The term “those prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy” in subparagraph 2 of Article 74 of the Decree means any of the following subparagraphs:

1. An input tax amount included in the transaction for which a receipt under Article 32 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act is issued, but not subject to such deduction;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) There is no dispute between the parties as to whether the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice made by falsity with ○○○ without a real transaction.

(2) In the process of the Defendant’s on-site investigation, the Plaintiff alleged that it was not a processing transaction because it purchased raw materials such as synthetic resin from ○○○○○, but actually purchased raw materials from ○○○○, but changed the assertion that it received tax invoices issued on ○○○○. Moreover, the Plaintiff paid the same to ○○○○○, in cash, and transferred the same to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s mother at the examination request stage, and did not submit all financial data on the remainder other than

(3) In addition, even though the Plaintiff is subject to double-entry bookkeeping under the Income Tax Act, the Plaintiff is not able to submit all trade books to support real transactions, etc.

(4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s details included in necessary expenses at the time of filing a global income tax return in 2002 amounting to KRW 222,88,420 from 22 enterprises in the first period, and KRW 140,607,258 from 23 enterprises in the second period, and KRW 493,607,258 in total, and KRW 145,538,410, which were excluded from the instant disposition in relation to the instant tax invoice, are 348,068,848 as necessary expenses, even if the Plaintiff excluded KRW 145,538,410 from the instant disposition.

[Evidence] Gap 4-1-3, 9-2, Eul 6-1-5, Eul 7-1-5, the purport of the whole argument

D. Determination

In an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority has the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact. Thus, the tax authority should bear the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, only when there are special circumstances such as where the tax office proves that a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was falsely prepared without real transactions and the taxpayer's assertion is reasonable and the taxpayer's assertion and the other party to the payment has proved to be false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du16406, Apr. 14, 2006; 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

According to the above facts, there is no dispute between the parties that the tax invoice of this case was prepared in falsity without a real transaction. However, there is a dispute as to whether the plaintiff purchased, purchased, and paid the price for the raw materials from the ship to the ship yard. Thus, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that it is easy for the plaintiff to present documents, such as account books and evidence, regarding the fact that such expenses were actually paid. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion is not acceptable since it seems consistent with this point, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it solely on the entries of Gap 3-1 to 4, Gap 4-1 to 63, Gap 5-1 to 63, Gap 9-1 to 3, Gap 12-1, Gap 12-8, and 13-1 to 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.