early 2012 Gwangju 1446 (2012.05.08)

This case’s tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and thus its original disposition is lawful.

The tax invoice of this case is not related to the plaintiff's output tax amount, but related to the input tax amount, and even if it is recognized that the plaintiff sold the gold bullion, the tax invoice of this case is appropriate for the initial disposition, since there is no evidence to prove that the gold bullion was immediately purchased by the plaintiff.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAAtech Co., Ltd.

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

April 17, 2013

May 29, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of value-added tax for the first period of 2010 against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2011, the imposition of KRW 000 of corporate tax for the year 2010, and the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 against the Plaintiff on November 12, 2012, respectively, shall be revoked.

[Plaintiff’s claim was stated to seek revocation of KRW 000 added as value-added tax for the first period of December 5, 2010 (value-added tax + KRW 000), which was added as value-added tax for the first period of December 5, 2011; however, the Plaintiff corrected this part’s claim on November 12, 2012 according to the Defendant’s notice of re-assessment of value-added tax for value-added tax as of November 12, 2012; and the Plaintiff’s claim was claimed as above]

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a company established on December 16, 2006 for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, and processing of pipes, pipes, electric parts, etc.

B. Upon filing a return on the tax base and amount of value-added tax for the first period of the Value-Added Tax in 2010 to June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted two copies of purchase tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) among the supply values received by BBAE (hereinafter “BB”) from the Plaintiff during the taxable period of the Value-Added Tax from January 1, 2010 to June 30, and reported and paid value-added tax amount of KRW 000 by including the total input tax amount of KRW 000 in the input tax amount to be deducted from the output tax amount of KRW 000,000 (=the output tax amount of KRW 000 - the input tax amount) as well as the additional tax amount of KRW 00.

C. After that, on the ground that the Plaintiff received goods from BB in fact without being supplied with goods, and constitutes a false tax invoice, the Defendant issued a disposition not to deduct the said KRW 000 as to the transaction portion with BB from the output tax amount, among the input tax amount reported by the Plaintiff, and accordingly, calculated the value-added tax to be additionally paid by the Plaintiff by adding a return and an additional additional tax for erroneous payment, etc. thereto. On December 5, 2011, the Defendant issued a disposition not to impose an additional tax amount of KRW 00 as the value-added tax for the first year of 2010 (= KRW 00 as the principal tax of value-added tax + KRW 000 as the additional tax + KRW 00 as the additional tax for the business year of 2010.

D. Meanwhile, on November 12, 2012, the Defendant revoked ex officio the imposition of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010 above, and on the same day, specified the basis of calculation and the amount of tax, and (i) 000 won as the additional tax for the first period of 2010 [The amount of additional tax for the receipt of the processing tax invoice + KRW 000 + the amount of unfair underreporting additional tax + 000 won for an erroneous underreporting additional tax + 000 won] further re-issued and notified (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an objection on December 8, 201, but was dismissed on December 27, 201, and filed an administrative appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 16, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on May 8, 2012.

Facts without dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and Eul evidence 6 (including various numbers in case of each number); the purport of the whole arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 20, 2010 and June 5, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a gold-type contract with each BB by setting the supply value of KRW 000 and KRW 000, and thereafter, the Plaintiff supplied gold-type goods manufactured by BBB and paid KRW 000 in total to BB as the transaction price, and received the instant tax invoice from O. The instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice. However, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice, and each of the instant dispositions were unlawful on the premise that BB was the insolvent company by BB, and that the Plaintiff was a disguised transaction with BB, without actually doing so with BBB, and that each of the instant dispositions was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 20, 2010, between BB and BB, the Plaintiff drafted an individual contract for production (No. 2-1) with the content that the Plaintiff would be provided with 000 won of the supply price of e-mail, such as e-mail, and then drafted an individual contract for production (No. 2-2) with the content that the Plaintiff would be provided with e-mail with e-mail, and on June 5, 2010, between BB and BB, the Plaintiff would be provided with e-mail e-mail, etc. from BB to 00 won of the supply price.

2) After that, the Plaintiff received two copies of the instant tax invoice from BB on May 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010 from each supplier BB, and each supplier BB on June 30, 2010, each of the supply value of KRW 000 and KRW 000, each of the items, and each of the three saws, saws and light-type and light-type marging lumps.

3) However, the Plaintiff did not have been provided with gold-free goods, such as the three saws strings and light lamps strings, which the Plaintiff was actually supplied by BBB from BB.

4) On the other hand, the current representative of the Plaintiff, Park Sang-ok, and Park Jong-ok, who were in charge of accounting affairs, such as issuance and receipt of tax accounting books by the former representative director and BBB, were all siblingsed, and Park Jong-ok operated O engineering, and Park Jong-O operated the O-O's O-O product accounting. In addition, Kim O-O made a national bank account in the name of KimO (Account Number: 000) at the request of Park O-O, and lent the name of the head of the Tong to ParkO.

5) On June 24, 2010 and June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff conducted a financial transaction in the form of bicycle races by transferring KRW 000 and KRW 000, respectively, to BB as follows, to BB, and re-transfer them to the account of KimO through the accounts such as future product, AAA engineering, and OO.

The details of financial transactions made on June 24, 2010: OO Products (00), OOcc (00 won) x KimO (000 won) x 000 won x Plaintiff (00 won) BB BB (00 won) x Occ (00 won) x KimO (00 won) x 00 won (00 won)

(2) The details of financial transactions as of June 25, 2010: KimO (00) ? GaO (00) ? Plaintiff (000) ? BBB (00) ? O water delivery (000) ? KimO (00) 00

6) BB was closed on September 20, 2010; BB was conducted on the data from around March 201 to around January 1, 2011 with respect to BB; BB reported sales in the first period of 2010 to KRW 000; but BB reported processing sales in the first period of 2010, 44.3% of which was 00%, and 48% of which was 00% of which were 48% of them, but was charged due to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the representative O on the grounds that it constitutes processing purchases.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-satis, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, and Eul evidence 9 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax amounts in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. The meaning that it is different from the facts is stipulated that, in cases where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is only nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the provisions of the tax invoice shall apply to the person to whom such income, profit, act or transaction, and where the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or received, regardless of the formal entries of the contract made between the parties to the goods or service (see

2) The Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice No. 2 was based on the following circumstances, i.e., BB, the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice No. 1 at the time of filing the return of value-added tax for the year 201, and the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice No. 2 at the time of 200. The Plaintiff purchased the instant tax invoice No. 2 at the time of 200, and the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice No. 2 at the time of 200, including the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant tax invoice No. 2 at the time of 200. The Plaintiff purchased the instant tax invoice No. 2 at the time of 20, and the 20,000,000,000 were no more than 20,000,0000,000 won and less than 20,0000,000 won.

3) Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

On the other hand, the plaintiff's assertion that the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, and that it was signed and sealed on the whole paper (Evidence No. 4) of this case by the tax official in charge, as it was alleged that the disposition of this case based on the preceding paper violates the rules of evidence and it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff's statement of No. 20 was against the rules of evidence, and there is no other evidence to support the above argument, and rather, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's existing statement of POO was supported by objective data on the above paper, and that the plaintiff's purchase of the above paper was not based on the above PO No. 20, and that it was not based on the above PO No. 20, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 2010, 201, 200, 201, 200, 201, 200.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.