Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice

A supplier is proved to be the data that issued a tax invoice without a real transaction, and a transaction-related document that can support the actual purchase is not submitted, and thus constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on October 16, 2004 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On June 28, 2001, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice amounting to KRW 53,815,000 of the supply value (hereinafter “tax invoice of this case”) from a stock company ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (on the present, trade name change to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

B. The Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued without real transaction, and did not deduct the said input tax amount from the output tax amount. On October 16, 2004, the Defendant issued the instant disposition that determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 104,227,980 for the first quarter of 2001.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually purchased computer and related parts from ○○○○○○○○○, and deposited money into the account of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and received the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant tax invoice was actually issued in accordance with the substance of the actual transaction, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

Even if the tax invoice of this case is written differently from the fact by ○○○○○, the Plaintiff is a bona fide business operator who received the tax invoice without knowing such fact, and thus, the input tax amount under the tax invoice of this case should be deducted. However, the disposition of this case on which the Defendant imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the tax invoice was filed on the data basis of ○○○○

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ issued a tax invoice without a real transaction and conducted a data-based investigation. As a result, the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ issued 12 cases from the first to the second taxable period from 2001, to the second taxable period from the 2002, to the six companies other than the ○○○○○ Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○ Information”), and received a processed tax invoice of KRW 1,985,97,00, and filed a complaint of KRW 43 cases from the 5,221,867,00 with the non-party 25 companies, and filed a complaint of KRW 5,210,270,00 for the issuance of the processed tax invoice of KRW 210,270 to the ○○○○○○○’s representative director and its ○○○○’s consultation data.

(2) On June 28, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a “contract on the supply of the main operating equipment of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd.” with the ○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and received the instant tax invoice from the ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. to purchase the computer and related parts in KRW 553,815,000.

(3)However, ○○○○○ has purchased the said computer and related parts from ○○ Information, which is an existing customer of the Plaintiff, at the same price as the value of supply to the Plaintiff, and issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff in the form of selling them to the Plaintiff.

(4) Meanwhile, in addition to the instant tax invoice and deposit certificates to ○○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff did not present a written estimate, a statement of transaction, a statement of transaction, a statement of transport cost, a contract for supply of goods, and a receipt and payment of goods.

[Based on recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, 1 through 11, and each part of the testimony, ○○○○, Nam○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings

【Evidence Evidence】 Evidence No. 4, Witness Maximum ○○, and Part of Witness ○○

C. Determination

(1) Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where all or part of the requisite entries in the tax invoice issued are entered differently from the fact. The phrase “ different from the fact” refers to cases where the requisite entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc., in which the goods or services are actually supplied or supplied, and the price and time of the goods or services are not different (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

As acknowledged above, the tax invoice of this case is a third party, not ○○○○○○○○○, and thus, it constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and thus, constitutes a tax invoice of this case, in full view of the following facts: (a) although the actual supplier of this case is a third party, the supplier is deemed to be the actual supplier of this case, and thus, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice of this case, since it constitutes a tax invoice of this case, since the supplier is deemed to be the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff did not submit a quotation, goods supply contract, and product receipt payment contract to support the purchase of the above computer, etc., despite asserting that the Plaintiff actually purchased the above computer, etc. from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is legitimate.

(2) Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not be allowed to deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier in the name of the tax invoice, and the person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount, unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier in the name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002; 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). The evidence No. 4 is difficult to believe it in light of each of the evidence No. 6 and No. 7, and it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing that the name of the supplier in the instant tax invoice differs on the basis of the statement of the witness ○○, the witness ○, and the witness ○, and the evidence No. 3-2, etc.

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.