The propriety of a disposition that deducts input tax amount by deeming the disguised purchase transaction of alcoholic beverages as a disguised processing

Since there is no proof that it is an intermediate wholesale market for local consumption or alcoholic beverages, it can not be said that there was no actual transaction on the details of transactions with the exclusive passbook for purchase of alcoholic beverages.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. On July 10, 2005, the head of ○○ Tax Office imposed a value-added tax of KRW 6,916,390 on Plaintiff Kim○○, which was imposed on July 10, 2002 on KRW 6,916,390, value-added tax of KRW 2,397,740 on KRW 2,397,740 on Plaintiff Kim○○, and imposed a value-added tax of KRW 4,693,110 on KRW 2,202 on July 10, 2005, imposed a value-added tax of KRW 9,229,290 on KRW 2,29,290 on KRW 2,203 on KRW 3,13,850, value-added tax on KRW 2,850 on KRW 203,205, KRW 3038,295,305,293,205.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The trade name of ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff Kim○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○, a trade name, “○○○○○” from the ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff’s door ○○○○, a trade name, “○○○○○” from the ○○○○-dong ○○-dong ○○○ building ○○○○○, and the Plaintiff’s front ○○, a trade name, “○○○○○○○○” from the ○○○○-dong ○○○-dong ○○○○ building.

B. The Plaintiffs purchased alcoholic beverages from ○○ Unemployment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Unemployment”) and ○○ Alcoholic Beverages (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Alcoholic Beverages”) as follows, and received a tax invoice for purchase (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) and filed a VAT return by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

Plaintiff ○○○○ issued each tax invoice totaling KRW 39,739,267, and KRW 13,582,444 in total, the supply value for the first period of 2002 from ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, and KRW 28,469,781, and KRW 67,83,654 in total, the supply value for the second period of 2002 from ○○ Alcoholic Beverages; KRW 18,889,470 in total, KRW 58,621,233 in total, and KRW 58,623 in total, the supply value for the first period of 202 from ○○ Alcoholic Beverages; Plaintiff ○○ received each tax invoice totaling KRW 28,469,781 in total, and KRW 203 in total, KRW 203 from 203 in total, KRW 203 in total, KRW 364,236,2336 in each period of 200.

C. From August 17, 2004 to October 14, 2004, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., conducted an alcoholic beverage distribution tracking process on the instant tax invoice on the grounds that the instant tax invoice was confirmed to be a disguised processing transaction. The Defendants informed the Defendants of the taxation data on the instant tax invoice on the grounds that the instant tax invoice was confirmed to be a disguised processing transaction. On July 10, 205, the Defendants did not deduct the value-added tax and the supply value on the instant tax invoice, and on July 10, 2005, the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○ issued a disposition on the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○ KRW 6,916,390, value-added tax for the first five years, 2,397,740, 2,393, 693, 100, 2005, 20339, 2005, 31305.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, A1's evidence 1 to 7, and 1's evidence 1 to 7

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

The Defendants asserted that, as ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, etc. were a juristic person for which 7% of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages from January 2001 to February 2003 was revoked due to the false issuance of tax invoices, ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, etc., 77% of the total sales amount of alcoholic beverages, and 86% of the unemployment was a disguised and fictitious transaction, the Plaintiffs’ actual transaction office is not ○○ Alcoholic Beverages, etc. but a non-licensed intermediary wholesaler or a single-registered borrower (referring to a non-licensed vendor who received alcoholic beverages after concluding a fixed transaction with a liquor retailer, such as a liquor retail store or restaurant, etc.) and then sold alcoholic beverages to his own fixed transaction office after receiving an order from the same transaction partner as the Plaintiffs, and received a payment in cash directly from the Plaintiffs, and thus, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice and thus, the input tax amount should not be deducted.

In light of the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○ number of alcoholic beverages traded, the Plaintiff, who entered the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ number of alcoholic beverages issued the Plaintiff’s 2-3 accounts for each of the instant transactions, and that the Plaintiff’s 3-1 and 4-1 and 5-6-1 and 7-1 and 7-1 and 7-1 and 7-1 and 5-2 were contained in the Plaintiff’s 2-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ number of alcoholic beverages issued the Plaintiff’s 6-1 and 5-1 and then, the Plaintiff’s 5-1 and the 5-1-6-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-2-3-3-3.

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.