The propriety of the disposition that reported as a processing tax invoice that does not engage in real transactions and deducted input tax amount;

As a matter of principle, the tax authority should prove that the tax invoice is false that it is not accompanied by real transactions.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 6,270,560 on May 1, 2007 against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2007 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The Plaintiff closed its business on December 31, 2006 with the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000 ○○○○dong 000 and now engaged in precious metals and sales business. The Plaintiff received one sheet of purchase tax invoice of KRW 38,880,000 from ○○ Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Korea”) during the first taxable period of 2003 on the ground that it received one sheet of purchase tax invoice of KRW 38,880,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) during the first taxable period of 203.

B. However, the Defendant decided not to deduct the input tax amount on each of the instant tax invoices on the ground that the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from ○ Korea was a tax invoice for processing that is not a real transaction. On May 1, 2007, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 6,270,560 (including additional tax) for the first quarter of 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts of dispute, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff actually purchased gold bullion from ○ Korea and paid the price in full, and received the tax invoice of this case. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is false is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proof for the fact of taxation is generally against the tax authority. As such, the Defendant, as a matter of principle, must prove that the tax invoice is false that it is not accompanied by the real transaction.

(2) However, according to the evidence Nos. 2 through 9-5 of Eul evidence Nos. 9-5, the court below found the actual operator of ○○ country (the actual operator of ○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○ Centre, ○○○○○ Inc., ○○M Global, and ○○○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd.) guilty of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc. on the grounds of the fact that the above company used the above company to sell gold bullion as tax exemption or to sell gold bullion to 16 wide-scale coal companies, such as ○ trade, ○ trade, ○○, and ○○○○○○ Rad, Inc., and ○○○○ Trad, etc., for the purpose of evading the value-added tax by 'the intermediate title of purchasing gold bullion in sequence from the above coal companies', and there is no evidence to conclude that the above facts are insufficient to deem otherwise in light of the following circumstances.

(3) In other words, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 11-2, Eul evidence 11, and witness Han-hee's testimony, the amount recovered as false by the defendant out of 102,291,00,000 won in 203, which was 102,263,000,000 won in actual purchase; the plaintiff was only a transaction on the tax invoice of this case with ○○ Korea; the plaintiff arranged it at the time; the plaintiff received 42,768,000 won from ○○ Korea to 100,000 won in total; and the plaintiff received 42,768,000 won in total from ○○○○○○ corporation with no tax exemption amount from 102,290,000 won in purchase and sale; and the defendant's defendant's 20,000 won in purchase and sale from ○○○.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.