Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap13456 ( October 16, 2010)

early 209west2195 ( December 17, 2009)

Since it is not proved that a tax invoice has been prepared and issued in a false manner without a real transaction, a disposition imposing tax shall be unlawful.

(1) It is reasonable to view that the tax invoice received by the customer was a normal transaction in full view of the investigation results of the customer's suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the fact that the person was suspected of being suspected of being under suspicion of insufficient evidence, and the monthly cost of automobile parts and the characteristics of the type of business that grants approval for payment of parts in cash.

2010Nu34820 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Unemployment Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap13456 decided September 16, 2010

June 21, 2011

July 19, 2011

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 4,672,360 on October 1, 2008 and corporate tax of KRW 9,853,710 on the first term portion of the year 2005 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2008.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion

(1) According to the president of the Plaintiff’s account of parts and expenses, in the fourth quarter of April 2004, 2005, 2/4 quarter of February 2005, and 2/4 quarter of February 2006, the monthly amount that the Plaintiff purchased from XXN and O trade is equal to KRW 11,985,30,880,60, 8,880,600, 9,245,500, and KRW 30,111,40,00. Therefore, it appears that the Plaintiff continued to receive a false tax invoice equivalent to the necessary amount from data merchants and O trading and reported value-added tax.

(2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the payment was made in cash to the customer in order to save the cost, and according to the relevant data, the Plaintiff appears to have changed the purchasing place of the Typian in the first quarter of January 2005 from OM to XX. At that time, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the change of the customer was false, even though there was no reason to change the purchasing place, because the Typian's three-three thousand won per unit price is 33,000 won, and 10,000 won per O trading, and that there was no reason to change the purchasing place.

(3) In relation to the timing of the replacement of parts, in general, it appears that the number of the upper half-term purchase of the Plaintiff in 2005 is different by item from that of the documents submitted by the Plaintiff, even though it is common to replace the lower part in the case of a water-driven motor vehicle with a set of time for the replacement of parts, it is difficult to believe the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

(4) Therefore, in full view of the foregoing circumstances, it should be deemed that the instant tax invoice was prepared and issued in falsity without real transactions.

B. Determination

(1) First, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s monthly purchase amount and the number of parts purchased and the content of parts purchased in the transaction with the Plaintiff’s OA and XX tech, solely based on the descriptions of the evidence No. 3-11 or 13, are identical to that of the Plaintiff’s OA and the Plaintiff’s monthly purchase amount and the number of parts purchased, even if the same type of car is not modified even if the same is not changed, the unit price of parts is nonexistent for a certain period of time, and even if orders such as the previous item and quantity can be repeated, it is difficult to readily conclude that monthly purchase amount may be identical to that of the Plaintiff’s monthly purchase

(2) Next, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 15-1, 8, 10, 13, and 15 of the evidence Nos. 15-15-2, the Plaintiff purchased parts of KRW 23,000 per O trade from April 4, 2004 and received 33,000 per unit price per O trade when changing the customer in the quarter of January 4, 2005, and then changing the customer into XX, he again received 23,000 won per O trade. However, even if the Plaintiff was to receive 23,00 won per previous unit price from the change of the customer in the second quarter of February 4, 2005, the Plaintiff can be deemed to have received 3,00 won per O trade, and it is difficult to conclude that the entire part of the part of the part of the transaction partner is a temporary difference in the price of the Plaintiff’s trade through the instant tax invoice.

(3) Lastly, in the case of a manual-speed vehicle, it is common to exchange a trip, disc, or string with a set which is its component part, but if there is a problem only with a part of the part, it may replace only a part. Therefore, even if there is a little difference in the volume of each part of the part purchased by the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone alone cannot be readily concluded that the transaction is false.

(4) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant tax invoice was issued in a false manner without real transactions is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.