208Guhap45399 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

00

Head of Eastern Tax Office

February 25, 2009

March 11, 2009

1. The Defendant imposed value-added tax of KRW 1, 821, 880 on the Plaintiff on November 6, 2007 and imposed value-added tax of KRW 3, 636, 370 on November 1, 2007 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2007.

Sector. On November 6, 2007, the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 139, 683, 980 against the Plaintiff on 2005 shall be revoked in entirety.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 30, 2001 to June 30, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) committed an act of selling and selling clothing materials with the trade name “○○ Product Distribution”; (b) closed on July 31, 2006; (c) on July 31, 2003, a tax invoice of KRW 11,075,50 for supply value to ○○○○○; (d) issued a tax invoice of KRW 11,075,50 for supply value (hereinafter “one tax invoice”); and (e) between January 31, 2005 and June 30, 2005, between ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○ through a tax invoice of KRW 24,946,550 for supply value (hereinafter “tax invoice of KRW 2”) and between May 16, 2005 and 205.

A total of supply values of KRW 928, 249, and 200 (hereinafter referred to as "third tax invoice") was issued, while a zero tax invoice of KRW 1949, 707, and 024 (hereinafter referred to as "fourth tax invoice") was issued to the Plaintiff between July 6, 2005 and October 13, 2005. Based on each of the above tax invoices, each of the value-added tax returns of KRW 203, 1, 205, 205, and 2, 2005 was returned to the Plaintiff (a value-added tax amount of KRW 94, 423, and 00 was refunded to the Plaintiff).

B. The defendant is a false tax invoice which was received without real transaction.

In light of the first tax invoice, the value of 11,075, and 500 won in supply shall be included in the base of value-added tax for the second period of 2003. With respect to the second tax invoice, the deduction of 2,494, and 600 won in the amount of value-added tax for the first period of 205. In the calculation of value-added tax for the third tax invoice, the deduction of 92,824, and 900 won in the amount of value-added tax for the second period of 2005. In relation to the third tax invoice, the deduction of 949,707, and 024 won in the amount of value-added tax for the fourth tax invoice was calculated as 949, 707, and 024 won in the amount of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax, including 2,000 won in the amount of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax for 203 years, 1, 781, 381.7.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 3-9, 4, 5, and 6 (including number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including number number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The first tax invoice is kept by ○○, in lieu of payment, as the Plaintiff did not receive the price of the material from ○○, among the transactions in which the Plaintiff supplied the raw materials for clothing between ○○ and ○○.

The amount of 11,075, 500 won of the materials supplied by the Plaintiff, which were used in China, is collected and delivered to ○○○ in the calculation of the amount of tax to return. The 2, 3, and 4 tax invoices are ordered by the Plaintiff to purchase the clothing and supplementary materials, such as the primary group, from ○○○○, and supply them to ○○○○ by purchasing the clothing and supplementary materials from ○○○.

It is a tax invoice received between ○○ and ○○○ through a transaction taking profits equivalent to 2-3% of the price of the materials received from ○○○ and ○○○○. Each of the dispositions of this case made by deeming that each of the above tax invoices is a false tax invoice received without a real transaction is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, or the burden of proof as to the value of supply, which is the tax base, is, in principle, the tax authority (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431 delivered on September 22, 1992, etc.): Provided, That only where the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process have been revealed, the facts at issue have become a problem

must prove the circumstances that are not eligible for the application of the empirical rule.

(2) In this case, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including the number of branches), if ○○○ entered as a supplier on the first tax invoice (Evidence No. 3-9), and 2, 3 tax invoices (Evidence No. 4-1 through 6, and evidence No. 5-1 through 15) entered as a supplier on the evidence were accused of the fact that ○○○○ was accused of the fact that ○○○ was accused of the fact that ○○○ entered as a supplier on the fourth tax invoice (Evidence No. 6-1 through 18) was charged to the investigation agency on suspicion of material, ○○○ was recognized again from the Plaintiff’s deposit account on the day of transfer from July 6, 2005 to October 13, 2005 to the Plaintiff’s deposit account.

However, the following circumstances, which are considered to be comprehensively taken account of the overall purport of the theory as to Gap evidence 3-1 to 8, Gap evidence 7-11 (including provisional lot number circulation), were submitted: ① in order to support the plaintiff’s assertion as to the process of issuing the first tax invoice to ○○○○, the tax invoice on the transaction of clothing materials between the plaintiff before the time of issuance of the first tax invoice and the ○○○○○○; there was no evidence to prove that ○○○ had been recognized as being material through the investigation, etc. by a fraud officer in relation to the tax invoice received between the plaintiff, ② in order to support the assertion as to the transaction on the second and third tax invoice, the account book was submitted to support the argument as to the transaction on the second and third tax invoice with the original high-priced ○○○○○○, and the defendant filed a complaint with the investigation agency on the fact that the second and third tax invoice was issued without the actual transaction.

No one has received, and the plaintiff and the ○○○○○ (the plaintiff's husband operated the ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○) were investigated by the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office under the charge of violating

No disposition of non-prosecution was rendered by the court below, and there is no evidence to prove that the OO was recognized as material through an investigation by an investigative agency regarding the second and third tax invoices; and ③ the Plaintiff ○○○○○ in order to support the allegations as to the transactions on the fourth tax invoice with the ○○○○○.

In this regard, beneficiary with the beneficiary ○○○, submitted a local letter of credit (No. 8-1 through 18 of evidence No. 8), data on the status of shipment of exported goods between July 5, 2005 and October 14, 2005 between ○○○○ and ○○ Customs Office with the beneficiary ○○○○○○, and submitted a transaction statement (No. 7-2 of evidence No. 7), with the details of the transaction between the Plaintiff and ○○○○○ Office, etc. on which the transaction details between the Plaintiff and ○○○○ Office were entered, and (4) the amount remitted to the Plaintiff’s deposit account shall be returned to OO again.

In light of the fact that there was no evidence to determine that the amount transferred by the Plaintiff to the bank account of ○○○○ was returned again to the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to conclude that each of the above tax invoices was a false tax invoice not accompanied by real transactions solely on the basis of the aforementioned facts recognized as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, each of the above dispositions taken by deeming that each of the above tax invoices was a false tax invoice not accompanied by real transactions is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

A judge or one presiding judge shall be a judge.

Judges Full completion

Judges Cho Jong-chul