propriety of the disposition of non-deduction of the input tax amount of the tax invoice received from data

Although it is alleged that the gold bullion was actually purchased from the company confirmed and accused as data, there is no presentation of reliable documentary evidence, so this disposition is legitimate as the processing transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2006 by the Defendant shall be revoked respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1997.8.18.부터 ○○시 ◎구 XX동에서 ◇◇◇이라는 상호로 귀금속 소매업을 하는 사업자이다.

나. 원고는 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 ◆◆◆◆ 주식회사(이하 ◆◆◆◆이라 한다)로부터 수취한, ①2002년 제2기분 합계 9,799,980원 상당의 금지금(순도 99.5% 이상의 원재료 상태의 금) 매입세금계산서 2장, ② 2003년 1기분 합계 15,315,397원 상당의 금지금 매입세금계산서 4장, ③ 2003년 제2기분 합계 11,457,349원 상당의 금지금 매입세금계산서 5장 등 매입세금계산서(이하 위 각 세금계산서를 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 하고, 위 각 거래를 '이 사건 거래'라고 한다)에 대한 각 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하여 신고하였다.

다. ●●지방국세청장은 ◆◆◆◆에 대한 세무조사를 실시한 후 ◆◆◆◆을 허위 세금계산서 자료상으로 수사기관에 고발하는 한편, 이 사건 세금계산서를 가공거래혐의의 과세자료로 피고에게 통보하였다.

D. On December 5, 2006, the Defendant recognized the instant tax invoice as a non-real transaction tax invoice, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 2,372,590 in 2002, and KRW 2,372,590 in 2003, and KRW 1,71,670 in 203 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on January 29, 2007, but was dismissed on February 22, 2007, and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on May 7, 2007, but was dismissed on July 26, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 10 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 ◆◆◆◆으로부터 실제로 지금을 매입하고 그 대금을 신용카드로 결제한 후 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받았으므로, 이 사건 세금계산서는 정상적인 실물거래에 의한 것으로서 사실에 부합한다. 따라서 이 사건 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 세금계산서임을 전제로 하는 피고의 이 사건 부과처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

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 the refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

(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 submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, excluding the input tax amount in such

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;

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions, based on direct evidence or all the circumstances. However, if the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is sufficient to prove that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that it is consistent with his/her own assertion in view of the position that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to present evidence and materials related to the illegality of the defendant's disposition, by asserting that the tax invoice is not false.

(2) 을 1 내지 16호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ◆◆◆◆은 2001.1.부터 2004.6.까지 실물거래 없이 원고와 사이의 거래를 포함하여 액면 합계 127,081,127,397원인 가공의 매출세금계산서 24,852장을 발행 · 교부하고, 실물거래 없이 액면 합계 161,427,823,787원인 가공의 매입세금계산서 544장 수취한 혐의로 □□□□검찰청에 자료상으로 고발되었고, 이로 인하여 ◆◆◆◆의 실질적 운영자인 △△△가 기소된 후 2005.1.27. 조세범처벌법위반죄 등으로 징역 1년에 집행유예 2년의 유죄판결을 선고받아 그 무렵 위 판결이 확정된 사실, 위 △△△는 2004.11.2. ●●지방국세청의 조사를 받을 당시 원고를 포함한 거래 상대방들의 매출세금계산서 교부명세 내역을 제시받고 50분 이상 충분히 검토한 후 실거래 없이 허위로 가공의 세금계산서를 교부하였다는 내용의 확인서를 작성하여 제출한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 증거와 사실관계에 의하면, 이 사건 세금계산서는 사실과 다른 가공의 세금계산서라고 봄이 상당하다.

(3) The Plaintiff cited as evidence supporting its assertion Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3-5, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2-2, witness testimony of △△△△△△△△△△△, the core material of the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s questioning result, etc. However, in the case of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2, there is doubt about credibility due to the difference between the body on the written confirmation directly prepared by △△△△△△△ on Nov. 2, 2004, and each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to find facts differently because the purchase tax invoice of this case is due to normal real transactions. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.