Cho High Court Decision 201Do3183 ( October 15, 2012)

It is reasonable to deem that the issue amount is the most fictitious transaction as purchased even if the customer did not purchase the promotional items, etc. from the customer.

The plaintiff asserts that the issue amount is actually purchased and paid the price. However, in light of the fact that all of the transaction parties accused of the material fact, it is reasonable to view that the transaction is the most fictitious transaction as purchased even if the sales promotion items were not purchased. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as the cost.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

2012Guhap27329 Disposition of revocation of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAA Corporation

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

June 21, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 1, 2010, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2008 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010, exceeding OOOOOOO won in the imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of 2009, exceeding OOOOO won in the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, exceeding 209, exceeding OOOOO won in the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year 2008, and exceeding 2008, exceeding OOOO won in the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, and more than 208, the income earner, and more than 2009, the income earner, and more than 20OOO won in the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year 209, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established around August 9, 1961, which owns manufacturing facilities within the OO drug complex at OO, and is listed on the Korea Stock Exchange that manufactures and sells drugs.

B. From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased sales promotional items (tax portion: OOOO personnel, and tax exemption portion; hereinafter the same shall apply) from non-limited company CCC and non-6 enterprises; and (b) received a purchase tax invoice, invoice, etc.; and (c) reported and paid corporate tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount; and (d) including the relevant input tax amount in the deductible expenses.

C. From July 9, 2010 to October 29, 2010, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) determined that the portion of the purchase tax invoice and invoice issued by the Plaintiff, other than the OOO won, was received from the processing tax invoice and invoice without the supply of goods and services; and (b) notified the Defendant of the determination that the portion was unfairly deducted from the input tax amount, and included in the deductible expenses.

D. Accordingly, on December 1, 2010, the defendant corrected and notified the plaintiff, the value-added tax OOOOO for the first year in 2007, the second year in 2007, the value-added tax OOOO for the second year in 2008, the second year in 2008, the value-added tax OOO for the first year in 2009, the second year in 2009, and the second year in 2009, the value-added OOO for the second year in 2007, the corporate tax for the business year in 2007, the corporate tax for the business year in 2008, and the corporate tax for the business year in 209, the representative director for the second year in 207, and the income amount for each of the plaintiff for the second year in 200, and the income amount for the second year in 208.

E. On the other hand, the transaction amount between DD, EE, F, GG and H (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant key trading office”) among the OOO parts that the Plaintiff had received the processed tax invoice and invoice without supplying goods or services, and the details that the Plaintiff recognized as the processed trade among them are as follows:

List of votes

(unit: 1,000 won)

Customer

Total Amount of transactions

The amount recognized for processing transactions;

Processing Transaction Denial Amount

2, 2008

1, 2009

2, 2009

Total

DD

OOO

OOO

OOO

EE

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

FF

OOO

OOO

OOO

GG

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

H H

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

OOO

F. 1) The Plaintiff filed an objection with the Tax Tribunal on August 9, 201, asserting that the Plaintiff actually purchased promotional items from the key transaction office of this case and paid the price, and that the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the imposition disposition of each value-added tax, the imposition disposition of corporate tax, and the notice of change in the amount of income, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 9, 201.

2) On March 15, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that "the Defendant imposed the above value-added tax on the Plaintiff, imposed the corporate tax, and notified changes in the amount of income," and that "in accordance with the results, correction of the tax base and amount of tax shall be corrected."

G. On May 14, 2012, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office decided to maintain the plaintiff's "the imposition of the above value-added tax, the imposition of the corporate tax, and the notification of change in income amount" (the plaintiff above part of the defendant's imposition of the value-added tax for the second term of December 1, 2010, exceeding OOOOOO, exceeding 100 in the imposition of the value-added tax for the first term of January 2009, exceeding OOOOOOO won in the imposition of the value-added tax for the second term of two years in 2009, exceeding OOOOOO won in the imposition of the corporate tax for the second term of two years in 208, exceeding 209, and exceeding 209 OOOOO's imposition of the corporate tax for the second term of 209, and exceeding 200,000,000 of each of the above part concerning the tax amount for the second term of the O.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 12 through 15 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key amount of the instant case is that the Plaintiff actually purchased and paid the sales promotions from the key trading office of the instant case, such as paper cups for promotion, mebines, straws, straws, revolving straws, wregs, wregs, living wregs, ceregs, and bregs for promotion, and that each of the dispositions of the instant case made on different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The facts admitted in the judgment of a relevant criminal case may be the only evidence in the trial of an administrative case, unless there are special circumstances, but where it is deemed difficult to adopt a factual judgment of a criminal case in light of other evidence submitted in the trial of an administrative case, it may be rejected (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1332 delivered on December 24, 191).

2) According to the above list of 11, 16 through 20, and 16 through 4, and 2, the plaintiff supplied the above list of 2,000 won to the accounts under the name of J and FG: K, and NN, the representative director of the plaintiff, included 2,000 won in the above list of 2,00 won, and 3,000 won in the above list of 2,00 won in the tax invoice and 2,000,000 won, which were not recorded in the above list of 1,000 won, and 3,000 won, were not recorded in the above list of 2,000,000 won, and 2,0000 won were not listed in the above list of 1,000 won, and 3,000 won were not listed in the above list of 2,01,000 won and 2,01,000 won were not listed in the judgment of the appellate court.

3) However, considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the entries in Eul evidence 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 are the most processed transaction that the plaintiff purchased even if the plaintiff did not purchase promotions, etc. from the main transaction of this case, and each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① The key issue of the instant case is a company against which an actual business entity was accused of all of the data as a PPP.

② 원고가 그 주장과 같이 이 사건 쟁점거래처로부터 판촉용 종이컵， 메모지， 볼펜， 일회용 마스크， 저금통， 장우산 세트， 생활비누 세트， 사각 메모함， 보온병， 판촉 용 머그컵 등의 판촉물을 구입하였다면， 이 사건 쟁점거래처로서는 다른 업체로부터 원고에게 매도할 판촉물을 구입하는 등 거래내역이 있어야 한다. 그런데 중부지방국세청 소속 직원이 조세심판원의 재조사 결정에 따라 이 사건 쟁점거래처를 조사한 후 작성한 재조사 종결 보고서(을 제5호증)에 의하면，㉠ DDD의 경우 2012. 4. 16. 현지 출장시 사업장(OO시 OO구 OO동3가 448 지하)은 폐문된 상태였고， 1층에서 사업을 하고 있는 사람과 인근에 위치한 식당 주인에게 DDD에 관하여 문의한 결과 '알 수 없다'고 답변하였으며，㉡ EEE의 경우 2012. 4. 12. 현지출장시 EEE 사업장(OO시 OO구 OO동 486-15， 104호)의 매매를 중개한 공인중개사사무소 대표에게 문의한 결과 EEE의 사업장에는 건강식품이나 주방용품이 진열되어 있었을 뿐 볼펜 및 메모지 등 판촉물은 없었다고 진술하였고，㉢ FFF의 경우 2012. 5. 2. 구매 업무를 담당하였던 QQQ에게 판촉물의 매입내역 등에 관하여 전화로 문의한 결과 QQQ은 딜러들로부터 판촉물을 매입하였다고 주장하면서도 매입처의 인적사항(상호， 성명， 사업자등록번호， 사업장 소재지， 연락처 등)에 관하여는 모른다고 답변하였으며，㉣ GGG， HH의 경우 실제 사업자인 PPP은 영업담당 직원 및 딜러들로부터 현금을 주고 판촉물을 매입하였다고 주장하면서도 매입처의 인적사항에 관하여는 모른다고 하면서 구체적인 증빙자료 등을 제시하지 못하였다.

③ In the case of the transaction recognized by the Plaintiff as a processing transaction, the Plaintiff transferred the money to the account in the name of the transaction partner, and then withdrawn the money in cash. However, in the case of this case, the Plaintiff appears to have a uniform or similar cash flow with respect to the transaction that the Plaintiff recognized as a processing transaction after withdrawing the money from cash immediately after the transfer to the account of another company (such as other companies or RR, SS, and TT in the key transaction of this case).

In addition, the plaintiff argued that it is an actual transaction prior to the transaction that is recognized as a processing transaction and recognized as a processing transaction as the payment details of the plaintiff's staff's completion and fee were confirmed in the monetary statement on the account in the name of the transaction partner.

④ The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the sales promotion from the key trading office of this case and then used it for the purpose of advertising or advertising, or for the futures of its employees and employees. From 2008 to 2009, UU, who was employed by the Plaintiff’s marketing department as the head of the department, was investigated by the employees of the mid-gu Regional Tax Office from Apr. 27, 2012, purchased the sales promotion from the key trading office of this case under the direction of VV audit, and distributed it to the sales team along with W WW and L/W with the sales box, the Plaintiff purchased the sales promotion item from the sales team of this case, and distributed it to the hospital or pharmacy with the sales team. However, if the Plaintiff purchased the sales promotion item from the key trading office of this case, and distributed it to the Plaintiff’s printed printer, along with the printed box, and distributed it to the sales team of this case, the Plaintiff did not present the sales team or its evidentiary material to the hospital or the sales team, etc., at all at the time, and distributed it to the hospital or the sales team.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserted that the part on the issue amount in the instant case is a real transaction, not a processing transaction, and submitted tax invoices, specifications of transaction, deposit certificates, and substitute slips (Evidence A to 10). However, these documents exist in the case of a transaction that the Plaintiff recognized as a processing transaction. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the part on the issue amount in the instant case is a real transaction only by the aforementioned evidence.

④ The police sent NN’s false tax invoice received from the NN to the prosecution by non-prosecution (no suspicion). However, according to the NN’s written opinion (Evidence No. 3) written by the police, the police asserted that NN was a real transaction, and the PP, which is the actual operator of the NN, KK, GG, and H, made a statement corresponding to this, and submitted a deposit transaction statement, and there is no reason to deny the NN’s charge solely for most of the issues of the instant case, in light of the fact that NN is difficult to acknowledge the NN’s charge, not objective evidence, but based on the NN’s statement by the representative of the N and the other party involved in the instant issue of this case, and that NN received a false tax invoice on the amount of the instant case. However, considering the circumstances that NN’s actual operator of the NN, such as the Plaintiff’s submission of the false tax invoice, there is no reason to deny it.

The statement is difficult to believe, and the part on the issue amount in this case is difficult to be recognized as the actual transaction only with the details of deposit transactions.

3. Conclusion

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