The propriety of the disposition of taxation by denying the relevant input tax amount received from the data;

The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false is unreasonable because the tax authority is in principle responsible for the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, and thus, it is unreasonable to impose a tax without proving the falsity of the tax invoice.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,302,300 against the Plaintiff on July 5, 2005 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2004년 제1기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 주식회사 ○○○○(이하 '소외회사'라 한다)로부터 수취한 2004. 1. 28.자 및 같은 해 3. 10.자 공급가액 합계 1,000만원인 지금(紙金)의 매입세금계산서 2장 (이하 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라 한다)에 대한매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하여 그에 상응한 세액을 환급받았다.

B. As a result of the investigation of data on the non-party company, the head of the ○○ Tax Office filed an accusation with the ○○ Police Station on the suspicion that the non-party company’s representative Kim○, received or issued a false tax invoice without real transaction, on the total purchase amount of KRW 37.7 billion and KRW 37.63 billion in total during the taxable period from the first period to the first period from 2001, and on the total purchase amount of KRW 37.63 billion in total, and notified the Defendant of each of the instant tax invoices.

C. On July 5, 2005, the Defendant recognized each of the instant tax invoices as non-real transaction tax invoices, upon the notification of the head of ○○ Tax Office, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,302,300 for the first time value added tax in 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The plaintiff filed an objection against the defendant on October 4, 2005, but the defendant rejected the defendant on December 18, 2005, and the plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on December 28, 2005, but the National Tax Tribunal rendered a ruling on May 3, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 11 to Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

피고가 위 처분사유와 관계 법령을 들어 이 사건 부과처분이 적법하다고 주장함에 대하여 원고는, 소외 회사로부터 2004. 1. 28. 지금 267.86ɡ을 3,999,953원에, 같은해 3. 10. 지금 401.80ɡ을 6,000,079원에 각 구입하면서 현금과 자기앞수표로 결제하였음에도 이와 달리 보고 한 이 사건 부과처분은 위법하다고 주장한다.

B. Relevant statutes

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

C. Determination

The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false shall, in principle, be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by a real transaction based on direct evidence or circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

Therefore, as to whether each of the instant tax invoices did not accompany a real transaction, it is not sufficient to recognize only the entries in ○○ Police Station, 1 to 3 evidence, 7 to 4-1, 5-2, 6-1, 7-2, and 7-2 of evidence Nos. 1, and 7-1, and 7-2 of evidence Nos. 1, as to whether each of the instant tax invoices was false tax invoices not accompanied by a real transaction. (In light of the records of evidence No. 12, according to the records of evidence No. 12, the Defendant’s assertion was without merit, on December 29, 2004, that ○○○○, the representative of the non-party company, was accused of having received a false tax invoice or issued a false tax invoice without a real transaction, and was found to have received a disposition of non-prosecution on December 23, 2005 without suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act).

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as it is decided as per the Disposition.