Whether it is a false tax invoice or not

The evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that each of the tax invoices of this case is false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

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

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 3,724,940 on July 6, 2006 and KRW 2,047,00 on January 1, 2003 shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 33,806,836 of the supply price (=20,366,594 won + KRW 13,440,242 won) during the taxable period of the value-added tax on 2002 and 33,806,836 won during the said taxable period from OOO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Oju”), and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the supply price of KRW 33,806,836 from the supply price under each of the above tax invoices.

B. The Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount on the grounds that each of the tax invoices of this case is a false tax invoice, and imposed the input tax amount of KRW 3,724,940 on February 2, 2002 and KRW 2,047,040 on January 1, 2003 (hereinafter each of the dispositions of this case).

(A) Each description of evidence 1, 2, 1, and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the tax invoices of this case is normal that the plaintiff purchased and received the tax invoices of this case from OOice, and the defendant's each of the dispositions of this case against this is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In light of the fact that the serial number of the transaction statement according to each transaction of this case does not coincide with the time order of transaction, each of the tax invoices of this case is obviously different from the facts, so the defendant's each disposition of this case is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) The details of each of the tax invoices of this case, which the Plaintiff received from Ojuice, are as follows.

(unit: Won)

No.

Date of transaction

Quantity

Unit Price

Value of Supply

Amount of tax

Total

Jinay

1

October 25, 2002

624.970g

12,533.33

7,832,957

783,295

8,616,252

Claim

2

November 13, 2002

498.413g

12,600.00

6,280,004

628,000

6,908,004

“”

3

November 14, 2002

500.024g

12,506.66

6,253,633

625,363

6,878,996

“”

4

February 25, 2003

1,000.00g

13,440.242

13,440,242

1,344,024

14,784,266

“”

2,623.407g

3,806,836

3,380,682

37,187,518

(2) The Plaintiff deposited each of the instant sales price into the account of the OOT Meice on the transaction date of each of the instant tax invoices.

(3) The trading date and issuance number of the trading statement following the instant transaction are as follows.

(A) 100742 October 25, 2002

(B) No. 100741 dated November 12, 2002

(C) November 13, 2002 100767

(D) 1009107 dated February 25, 2003

(4) Each of the instant tax invoices is indicated as “a claim for this amount”.

(5) On December 26, 2002, the Plaintiff sold each amount of KRW 1780,000,000,000, to the OP Co., Ltd., an amount of KRW 10,987,500,000, such as 10,987,500,000, such as 14 February 14, 2003 and 8,192,00,00,000, to the OP Co., Ltd.

(6) On February 21, 2006, the head of the OOO tax office conducted a tax investigation on Ojuice, notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the Plaintiff received each of the tax invoices of this case by falsity without real transactions, and filed a complaint on March 2, 2006 as data for the OOju and its representative.

(7) Most of the purchase sources of OOju, including OTR Co., Ltd. and OOOO, were accused of having been accused of tax evasion.

(A) Evidence of heading 1 to 6, each of the evidence of heading 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the issuance number of the specification of transactions in each of the instant transactions does not coincide with the time order of the transaction, or that each of the instant tax invoices contains “request box” other than “Decree box”, and that it is insufficient to recognize that each of the instant tax invoices was false on the basis of the circumstances charged by the Defendant for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc. and the evidence submitted by the Defendant including those accused by the Defendant was submitted. There is no other evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant tax invoices was false.

(1) The fact that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to Ojuice in a normal manner and actually sold the part equivalent to the purchase price from OOjuice to OO tourist, etc.

(2) The fact that the serial number of the transaction statement does not coincide with the time order of transaction can be seen as due to the fact that the transaction statement was issued ex post facto, and the fact that the transaction statement was issued ex post facto is not an error of law and is often possible in such a case.

(3) Although each of the tax invoices of this case is indicated as "a claim," it seems to be due to the occupational error or loss of OOjuri, although it appears to be due to the occupational error or loss of OOjuri.

(4) The fact that it is not a part of the Plaintiff's involvement in how to withdraw the sales price deposited to OOju, after Ojuice purchased the instant goods from anyone by any means.

(5) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff participated in or was aware of the conduct of tax evasion, etc. at the time of each of the instant transactions, uf09e.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's each disposition of this case is unlawful and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit, and each disposition of this case is revoked as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate 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 "paid tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "purchase tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "sales tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

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 taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the list of the total tax invoice by customer submitted, or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact

1-2. Not more than the omission;