Seoul High Court 2008Nu6921 (2008.05)

National High Court Decision 2007west0496 (Law No. 24, 2007)

propriety of a disposition of tax invoice not to deduct the input tax amount received from data

It is insufficient to presume that the Plaintiff’s remittance was not accompanied by real transactions as a different tax invoice solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s remittance was made to another company within a short time by adding the money transferred to another company.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Although examining all of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal, it is clear that the appellant’s grounds of appeal fall under Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal, and thus, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

[Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu6921, 2008.05]

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2006 and the first period of 202 value-added tax for the first period of 2002 shall be revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the imposition;

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it refers to the same as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 금지금을 귀금속으로 가공하거나 절단하여 판매하는 영세 도ㆍ소매업자로서 ○○○쥬얼리로부터 시Ž�이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 금지금을 매입하고 그 대금을 모두 ○○○쥬얼리의 은행계좌로 입금하는 등 정상적인 거래를 하였음에도 ○○○쥬얼 리가 자료상으로 고발된 업체라는 이유만으로 원고가 실물거래 없이 이 사건 세금계산서를 수취하였다고 단정하고 한 피고의 이 사건 각 부과처분은 위법하다.

B. Determination

(1) Whether a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, exists or the burden of proving the value of supply, which is the tax base, is, in principle, imposed on the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992). However, only where the facts alleged as a taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, it can be said that the other party can only prove the circumstances in which

(2) According to the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 11 with respect to the instant case, the director of the Nam-gu Tax Office received most of the purchase tax invoices from the company accused of the purchase tax invoices from March 5, 2001 to December 31, 2003, prior to ○○○○○○ Company and its representative on the ground that the sales tax invoices issued by ○○○○○○○ Family was processed, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed an accusation against the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (However, the current status of indictment was suspended due to its unknown whereabouts). If the Plaintiff deposits the transaction price under the instant tax invoice to the bank account of ○○○○ through ○○○○○○ Family and its representative on the ground that the amount deposited by other companies was combined with the amount deposited by ○○○ Company and the bank account of the ○○ system, and the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the sales tax invoices again to the bank account of the ○○○○ Company and its representative.

(3) However, comprehensively taking account of the above-mentioned evidence and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 7, Gap’s 7, Gap’s 10-1 or 36, Gap’s 12-1 or 23, and Gap’s 24-1 through 7, and Eul’s 25-1 or 4’s 7-1, 4-2, and 7-1, 7-2, and 7-2, the Plaintiff’s supply value of gold bullion supplied to the Plaintiff during the ○○○○○○○○○○○ 7,000, no other evidence was found to have been found to have been found to have been distributed to the Plaintiff at the time of ○○○○○○○ ○○ 7,00,00 gold bullion, and no other evidence was found to have been found to have been purchased at the time of ○○ 2,000,00 gold bullion.

(4) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions that deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without real transaction is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is so unfair that it has different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and each disposition of this case shall be revoked as ordered.