False Tax Invoice

In view of the fact that the Plaintiff does not present any objective evidence to prove that the instant tax invoice was a real transaction, it is legitimate to dispose of the original tax invoice, which the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of correction notice of KRW 19,348,170 on August 10, 2004 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2001 against the Plaintiff, KRW 13,46,180 on the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2001, and KRW 81,159,040 on the corporate tax for the business year 2001 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business proprietor who engages in miscellaneous sales business, such as clothes wholesale and retail, and the 2002 Korea-Japan and World Cup products.

B. The Plaintiff, upon reporting the value-added tax for the first and second years in 2001, received 12 tax invoices as shown in the following table (hereinafter “○○ shoppingnet”) from the supplier, and deducted 10,450,000 won in total, and 7,653,440 won in total from the output tax amount for the second year in 2001.

For the first term of January 2001

No.

Date

Value of supply (cost)

Value-added Tax (cost)

Total (won)

1

April 21, 2001

13,000,000

1,300,000

14,300,000

2

April 30, 2001

6,000,000

600,000

6,600,000

3

May 19, 2001

4,000,000

400,000

4,400,000

4

May 26, 2001

26,500,000

2,650,000

29,150,000

5

June 15, 2001

3,000,000

3,300,000

36,300,000

6

June 23, 2001

22,000,000

2,200,000

24,200,000

Total

104,500,000

10,450,000

14,950,000

For a period of two years, 201

No.

Date

Value of supply (cost)

Value-added Tax (cost)

Total (won)

7

July 16, 2001

13,162,500

1,316,250

14,478,750

8

July 31, 2001

9,114,000

911,400

10,025,400

9

August 16, 2001

15,558,400

1,555,840

17,114,240

10

August 31, 2001

1,256,000

1,125,600

12,381,600

11

September 15, 2001

8,827,000

82,700

9,709,700

12

September 30, 2001

18,616,500

1,861,650

20,478,150

Total

76,534,400

7,653,440

84,187,840

C. In addition, the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax amount of KRW 17,581,01 in the business year 2001 by including the total value of supply stated in the instant tax invoice as deductible expenses when filing a final return of corporate tax base for the business year 2001.

D. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that ○○ shoppingnet, a supplier of the instant tax invoice, was data; (b) determined that all the instant tax invoices were prepared without real transactions; (c) denied the Plaintiff’s deduction of the input tax amount for the second and second years portion of the tax invoice in 2001; and (d) denied the inclusion of the Plaintiff’s input tax amount for the business year 2001 in the deductible expenses related to the corporate tax, thereby revising the relevant tax base and tax amount; and (d) rendered a disposition of notice of correction for the Plaintiff on August 10, 2004, including the relevant additional tax, KRW 19,348,170, value-added tax for the first and second years of 201, value-added tax for the second and second years of 201, and KRW 81,159,040 for the business year of 201.

Facts without dispute (applicable to recognition), Section 1, 2, 3.

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the tax invoice of this case was issued based on the actual transaction, such as that the plaintiff purchased clothes, stones, etc. from the "○○ shoppingnet" and deposited online from the "○○net" as indicated below, or that the plaintiff's auditor 00, who managed the plaintiff's store located in the ○○ Line 1 Line 1 Line 1 Line 1 Line 1 Line 1 Line 1 Line 1 Line 1 Line 2000,000 won in cash and approved the total of 197,713,840 won in cash, the disposition of this case reported differently by the defendant is

No.

Method of Approval

Date/Transfer Date

Payments/Transmissions (wons)

1

Cash

May 1, 2001

5,015,000

2

〃 4

May 17, 2001

8,580,000

3

〃 4

may 29, 200

5,720,000

4

〃 4

June 5, 2001

6,600,000

5

〃 4

June 14, 2001

4,400,000

6

〃 4

June 26, 2001

17,490,000

7

〃 4

July 4, 2001

3,366,000

8

〃 4

July 12, 2001

1,660,000

9

〃 4

July 18, 2001

5,400,000

10

〃 4

July 26, 2001

10,3470,240

11

〃 4

August 2, 2001

7,263,00

12

Online Payments

August 9, 2001

19,054,600

13

Cash

August 17, 2001

6,898,160

14

〃 4

August 27, 2001

3,080,000

15

〃 4

August 29, 2001

14,520,000

16

〃 4

September 7, 2001

3,300,000

17

〃 4

September 13, 2001

9,680,000

18

〃 4

September 17, 2001

6,302,000

19

〃 4

September 24, 2001

8,250,000

20

〃 4

October 10, 2001

18.25,800

21

〃 4

October 18, 2001

6,600,000

22

〃 4

October 26, 2001

15,962,040

Total

197,713,840

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff, a company established on November 1, 1996, was selected as a general company in the Seoul and Gyeonggi-do area and sold insignia products. The Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of the issuance of the instant tax invoice is ○○.

(2) The “○○ shoppingnet” is a company established on February 18, 1999 and established on April 7, 2001 by Shin○○○, a nominal representative director of which was registered as a wholesale and retail sales business and telecommunications sales business and actually operated as a nominal representative director of which was closed on October 25, 2001.

(3) On June 2004, the head of Seoul ○○ Tax Office discovered that the “○○ shoppingnet”, a supplier listed in the instant tax invoice, received the processed purchase tax invoices of KRW 3,196,252,00 in total from seven companies, such as ○○ Trade Co., Ltd., which became final and conclusive as data in the second half of 2001, and investigated the process of issuing the sales tax invoices of KRW 643,590,000 in total sold to eight companies, including the Plaintiff, and confirmed that most of the results of the investigation conducted a processed transaction without real transaction, and accused the said ○○○ and new ○○○ on charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc.

(4) In the process of the above investigation, as a customer of the "○○ shoppingnet", an investigation was conducted as to whether the Plaintiff was a real transaction. On August 9, 2001, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 19,054,600 to the "○○ shoppingnet" without presenting objective evidence, such as purchase, sales, and receipts and disbursements of goods, to the "○○ shoppingnet" as the transaction price, and the remainder of the transaction price was paid in a promissory note over several occasions, but all of the parts that the Plaintiff paid in a promissory note were proved to be false (not dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant).

(5) At the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that ○○ shoppingnet was supplied with the World Cup Bats and souvenirs and souvenirs and paid the price thereof, and that the Plaintiff had discovered the transaction details, accounting slips, and deposit slips (including A-A-8-22, number) related to the instant tax invoice after the instant lawsuit, and that the Plaintiff was supplied with the goods such as clothes, such as Myeonbs, Babs, Ribs, office boxes, roof boxes, and head pins, such goods as Myeonbs, Dobs, Dobs, and Dobs, and that the said transaction amount was wired online or paid in cash.

(6) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s representative director ○○, and the Plaintiff’s representative director ○○, were indicted on charges of being refunded value-added tax in the amount of KRW 1,488,574,637, total of the ten supply value of the purchase tax invoice for the second period of 202, which was received falsely from ○○○○, a stock company, and was convicted in the first and second instances, and is still pending in the

(Evidence) 4 to 7, 9, 10-1, 2, 00 of witnesses, 00, 00, 100, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) If a tax invoice on some of the input tax amounts or necessary expenses reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely without a real transaction by the Defendant, who is the tax authority, without a real transaction, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost and the other party to the payment of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer has been proved to be false, it is necessary to prove that there was a real transaction and that such expenses have been actually paid, in the taxpayer’s account book keeping and documentary evidence, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff failed to present objective evidence, such as purchase and sale place, and commodity receipt books. The Plaintiff asserted that it was paid as promissory notes with respect to the instant tax invoice, but it was falsely revealed that it was paid in cash. However, even though the Plaintiff calculated the amount paid in the transaction period with “○○ shoppingnet,” the amount of the instant tax invoice and the amount that the Plaintiff paid as the transaction price did not coincide with one another, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff paid the transaction price for “○○net” as part of the instant sales price through “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” through “○○○○○○○○○○,” under the circumstances where it was possible for the Plaintiff to do so, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff, received the instant tax invoice 1 through “○○○○○○○○○,” and that there was no other objective evidence from “○○○○○○○, etc., to the Plaintiff from “1 to 2, etc., which the instant goods were supplied without any objective evidence or evidence.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition against the Plaintiff is lawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

public official law, order of law,

○ Scope of deductible expenses Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of the concerned corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided in this Act.

(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.

(3) Matters necessary for the scope and types of losses under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

○ Article 66 of the Corporate Tax Act, Decision and Correction

(2) Where a domestic corporation which has reported pursuant to Article 60 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the head of the competent local tax office shall correct the corporate tax base

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

○ Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

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 tax amounts shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

○ Decision and Correction of Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act (Revision)

(1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Administration or the Commissioner of the National Tax Administration of the local government having the jurisdiction over the business place, shall make a decision or correction upon the investigation of the tax base and amount of the value-added tax, or the amount of the tax to be paid, for the taxable period, only in the following cases:

1. Where he fails to file a final report;

2. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of a final return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted, or all or part of the list of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or entered differently