Whether the input tax amount of the tax invoice entered differently from the fact of the purchaser of the goods is deducted.

In cases of a tax invoice in which the purchaser of the goods is entered differently from the fact, the amount equivalent to the value of supply shall not be deducted as the input tax

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 60 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 3,198,610 for the second period of February 2002 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2006, KRW 8,627,650 for the first period of January 2003, KRW 6,370,660 for the second period of February 2003, and KRW 3,657,760 for the first period of January 204 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 7, 2002, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name "○○○", and operated precious metal, visual, and malicious retail business from November 21, 2002 to March 31, 2007 at ○○○○-dong ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○, ○○○-dong, ○○, ○○-dong, 2007.

B. When the Plaintiff reported each value-added tax on the Defendant from February 2, 2002 to January 2004, the Plaintiff submitted each of the tax invoices of KRW 18,181,00 for the second term of 202, the total value of supply received from ○○○ Co., Ltd., 59,906,000 for the second term of 2003, the amount of KRW 46,000 for the second term of 203, the amount of KRW 46,000 for the second term of 203, the amount of KRW 27,49,000 for the first term of 204 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”), and received the deduction of the corresponding input tax amount.

C. ○○ regional tax office conducted a tax investigation with respect to ○○○ Incorporated Company. Recognizing that ○○○○ Company actually operated the said Incorporated Company and issued a false tax invoice without supplying actual goods at the Plaintiff’s place of business, and then notified the Defendant of the taxation data, and filed an accusation against ○○○○.

On January 27, 2005, ○○○○ District Court convicted the Plaintiff as an actual manager of the said corporation of the facts other than the law, including the issuance of the instant tax invoice to the said Plaintiff without any actual supply of goods, and the issuance of a false tax invoice at a total of 263,147,885,984 won from January 27, 2001 to May 2004. The said judgment became final and conclusive.

○○ himself recognized the facts of the law in the course of the tax investigation by the National Tax Service and the trial by the court.

D. On November 1, 2006, the Defendant denied the deduction of the input tax amount based on the instant tax invoice based on the taxation data notified as above, and imposed the instant value-added tax, such as the Plaintiff’s claim, on November 1, 2006.

Facts without the basis of recognition, those as referred to in subparagraph 1, those as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 29, those as referred to in subparagraphs 3 through 5, those as referred to in subparagraphs 6, those as referred to in subparagraph 1, those as referred to in subparagraphs 2, and those as referred to in subparagraphs 3 through 11, and those as referred to in subparagraphs 2.

2. Whether the disposition of value-added tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The tax invoice of this case received by the Plaintiff from the said corporation was actually purchased and received by the Plaintiff from the said corporation. This point is clear in light of the Plaintiff’s fact that the Plaintiff processed and sold the current sales equivalent to the above supply value and recorded sales in excess of the above supply value, or that the Plaintiff deducted the amount equivalent to the supply value of the tax invoice received from the said corporation as necessary expenses based on the Plaintiff’s processed and sales data in imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff in the ○○ Tax Office. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case was unlawful disposition resulting from misconception of the facts pertaining to the real transaction between the Plaintiff and the said corporation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the tax invoice of this case between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○ was all received without supplying the actual goods. The statement to the effect that there was an actual transaction equivalent to approximately KRW 90% of the supply price of the tax invoice of this case among the statements from No. 14 and the witness ○○○○’s testimony cannot be believed, and the statement to the effect that there was an actual transaction equivalent to the above KRW 90% of the supply price of the tax invoice of this case is insufficient to reverse the above recognition only on the basis of the statements from No. 5. 68, No. 7

Meanwhile, according to the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3. 8 of subparagraph 5, among subparagraph 6, the Plaintiff could have actually supplied and processed and sold all or part of the supply price stated in the tax invoice of this case by other transaction parties, other than the said corporation. However, even so, as long as the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice stating differently from the fact that the goods are purchased, the amount equivalent to the value of value can not be deducted as the input tax amount, and there is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff had known that the name of the supplier of the tax invoice of this case is different from the fact, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of this case is legitimate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.