early 2013 Middle 2179 ( November 15, 2013)

It is not proven that the actual transactions are not proven because the prosecutor's investigation conducted a non-prosecution disposition on the ground of insufficient evidence.

It is difficult to see that the actual transaction is proven even if the prosecutor has received a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds of lack of evidence as a result of the investigation by the prosecutor.

2014Guhap1087 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

○ Stock Company

○ Head of tax office

December 12, 2014

January 9, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of December 3, 2011 against the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established around July 6, 201 and operated a non-ferrous metal wholesale and retail business from that time.

is a company.

B. From July 201 to December 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff received 3,281,211,211,211,000 won purchase tax invoices (hereinafter “purchase tax invoices of this case”) from ○○, ○○○, Inc. (excluding when first mentioned, “stock companies” included in the company’s name is omitted), and ○○, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the transaction parties of this case”), and issued the sales tax invoices of KRW 3,281,211,00 in total of the supply value to ○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “the sales tax invoices of this case”). In filing a return of value-added tax for the second period of December 201, the Plaintiff deducted the purchase tax invoices of this case from the output tax amount.

C. The director of the Central Regional Tax Office of the Republic of Korea has investigated the customer of the instant case and the plaintiff from the material facts.

In the second quarter of 201, the instant transaction parties confirmed that they issued a processing tax invoice to the Plaintiff without real transactions and notified the Defendant thereof.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant, on December 3, 2013, notified the Plaintiff of the amount of value-added tax 131,248,440 for the second term portion of the year 201, deeming that the said purchase and sales were conducted without actual trade.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a tax appeal on April 23, 2013, but the claim was dismissed on November 19, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased waste Dongs from the clients of the instant case and supplied them to ○○. Each purchase and sale tax invoice of the instant case is prepared by reflecting the content of the actual transaction as it is, and thus, is not a false tax invoice.

(b) Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

C. Determination

1) The old addition to which the input tax deduction for the tax invoice received in the course of transaction is denied.

Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201) refers to a case where the necessary entries in a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the entity that actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, and the price, time, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Even if a transaction of supplying goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier constitutes a “tax invoice different from the one that is issued the tax invoice.”

2) The purport of the entire pleadings as to each entry of evidence Nos. 6, 11, and 1 to 3

Comprehensively taking account of all the transaction parties of this case, it is recognized that all of the transaction parties of this case were "the so-called "data market established only for the purpose of issuing a tax invoice without actual transaction." In light of such circumstances, even if the Plaintiff was actually supplied the closed Dong on the purchase tax invoice of this case, the transaction parties that supplied the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be another supplier, not the supplier specified in the tax invoice. Therefore, the purchase tax invoice

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff supplied the waste Dong to ○○○ in a normal manner.

It is discussed to the effect that the sales tax invoice is not a different tax invoice.

In this case, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is not sufficient for the Plaintiff to use the sales tax of this case without actual transactions.

In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that an invoice was issued, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the invoice was issued, and rather, it is possible to consider that the Plaintiff was normally supplied to ○○○ in light of the fact that there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Plaintiff issued the processed tax invoice to ○○ without real transactions in the case under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, namely, the Plaintiff’s violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and that ○○ received input tax deduction for the supply price related to the sales tax invoice of this case received from the Plaintiff.

4) The Defendant’s sales are deemed to have been conducted without actual transactions. The sales are deemed to have been conducted by the Defendant.

As seen earlier, the value-added tax in this case was imposed on the Plaintiff with the tax amount assessed. However, if the pertinent sales were not deducted and are included in the tax base according to the Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax, it is apparent that the value-added tax for the second period of 201, which the Plaintiff should pay, exceeds the tax amount pursuant to the instant disposition. Thus, it is difficult to view that the instant disposition within the scope of a legitimate tax amount, which is within the legitimate tax amount, should be revoked (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du3823, Jun. 15, 2006)

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.