Suwon District Court 2007Guhap3478 ( October 27, 2008)

National High Court Decision 2007J0473 (Law No. 105, 2007)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual scrapion to the disposition was purchased through a processing transaction

It is difficult to view that there was an actual transaction, considering that there was no explanation about transaction circumstances, such as the method of weight measurement at the location of the storage, while preparing a written confirmation of transaction separately from the tax invoice during the taxable period, and directly purchasing scrap iron to the storage;

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second period of July 24, 2006 against the plaintiff on July 24, 2006 of value-added tax of 28,845,110 won and global income tax of 95,237,340 won for the second period of 204 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in addition to the use of 5, 21, 6, 10 of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

In light of the purport that “○○○○○○○○○○○” was written as of December 31, 204 and that “the fact that it was true that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ purchases scrap metal from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and sold it to the Plaintiff as of the instant tax invoice.” However, it is an exceptional to prepare a written confirmation of transaction separate from the tax invoice during the taxable period of value-added tax, and its content is difficult to believe it as is in light of the answers of ○○○○○○○ when the Busan regional tax office conducted an investigation on April 22, 2005. ② The fact that ○○○○○○○○ issued a false tax invoice to the Plaintiff, etc. at the time of its violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and that it was difficult to conclude that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s supply of scrap metal as alleged by the Plaintiff.” The Plaintiff did not have any reasonable reason for the Plaintiff to directly purchase ○○○○○○○○.

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