Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gudan1670

The degree of proof of processing transaction

In full view of the fact that the prosecutor’s office was selected as the subject of tax investigation upon the request for accusation, the date on which the other party made a specific and consistent statement in the course of investigation and the date on which the other party asserts that the counter-party paid the counter-party the counter-party was later than the date of completion of the building that is the place where the counter-party was used.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Seoul High Court 2015Nu45702

AA Stock Company

Kimpo-hoon

Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gudan1670

oly 16, 2015

October 14, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 16,040,206 won for the second term of 209 against the plaintiff on February 7, 2014 and the disposition of imposition of 15,828,636 won for the business year of 209 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows:

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes again in the trial under paragraph (2) of this Article, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

In ○○ 4, the second column to be the 5th line from the second list to the 5th "2,00,000 won", the 4th column to the 5,000,000 won to the 5,000 won to the 4th column to the 25, 2010 " January 21, 2010" to the 6th column to the 15, 2009 " December 24, 2009" to the 5th column to the 10,00,000 won to the 10,00,000 won to the 6th column to the 6th, respectively.

○ The following details shall be added to the next activity of the third page 7, and the attached Form of this Judgment shall be attached to the judgment of the first instance.

"B. Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes"

. "As shown in the Annex."

○○ 3rd 8th 8th Na, recognized facts. Recognizing facts, the 5th Do 3th Da, and the 5th Do 'judgment', respectively.

(cite of the first instance judgment)

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation established on March 12, 2009 for the purpose of construction business, etc. and completed business registration on April 15, 2009, received purchase tax invoices by purchasing (hereinafter “purchase transaction in this case”) the total supply value of 86,870,971 won from the Won Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Steel”) during the second taxable period of the value-added tax for the second taxable period of the same year, and paid the value-added tax calculated by deducting it as the input tax amount at the time of the return of the value-added tax for the second taxable period of 2009, and paid the corporate tax calculated by adding the purchase amount to the deductible expenses at the time of the return of the corporate tax for the business year of 20

B. However, from July 31, 2012 to October 18, 2012, the head of Seocheon District Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the non-party company, which identified the fact that the non-party company issued a false tax invoice without real transactions, and notified the defendant of the taxation data. The defendant confirmed that the purchase transaction in this case was a processing transaction based on the above taxation data, and confirmed that the purchase transaction in this case was a processing transaction, and notified the plaintiff of the amount of value-added tax 16,040,206 for the second term of February 7, 2014, deducted the input tax amount and non-deductible tax amount, and notified the plaintiff of the correction and notification of the amount of corporate tax 15,828,636 for the business year of 209

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 9, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the decision on June 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 14, Eul 1 to 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff received a transfer of tax invoices from the non-party company through the purchase transaction of this case, and received them normally, but the purchase price was transferred to the account BB, a substantial representative of the non-party company, or paid in cash, the purchase transaction of this case should be seen as a genuine transaction. However, the Defendant concluded that the purchase transaction of this case was a processing transaction on the basis of only the Non-party company’s statement and account transaction details, etc.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The process of issuing false statements of purchase and sale by the non-party company

A) Nonparty Company is a corporation established on June 13, 2003 and voluntarily discontinued on June 30, 201, and is incorporated;

Since then, from January 11, 2007, this BB, the husband of this B, has served as the representative director from the next day to the day of voluntary closure.

B) Nonparty Company is a false tax in the taxation period of value-added tax for February 2, 2010 and January 2011.

A statement was issued and was selected as a tax investigation subject.

C) As to the non-party company from July 31, 2012 to October 18 of the same year

In addition, the non-party company filed a criminal charge in accordance with the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by stating that most of the sales tax invoices attached at the time of the value-added tax return was false tax invoices without real transactions during the period from January 2009 to January 201.

D) On January 22, 2013, 2013, Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2012 high-level 13208 Punishment of Tax Offenses Act (No. 13208)

A summary order of KRW 15 million was issued for a violation of the Act, and the above summary order was finalized on February 13, 2013.

Total amount of supply value on the date of issuance

1,958,670 won 21,545,370 won on October 19, 2009

2,065,146 won 22,716,606 won on November 24, 2009

2,843,150 won on December 19, 2009 31,274,650 won on December 28, 2009

1,030,395 won 11,334,345 won on December 22, 2009

Total 78,973,610 won 7,897,361 won 86,870,971 won

Payment method of the payment date amount;

Transfer of KRW 3,00,000 (BB) Account on January 23, 2009 to the account transfer of KRW 2,000,000 (B) Account on December 31, 2009

Payment of 30,000,000 won in cash on October 15, 2009 (B) transfer of 3,500,000 won in January 22, 2010 (B) account transfer

Payment of 2,000,000 won in cash on December 8, 2009 shall be made on January 20, 2010 (foreign company) account transfer of 10,000,000 won (foreign company) account transfer

Payment of KRW 2,00,000 in cash on December 15, 2009 shall be made on January 25, 2010 (foreign company) account transfer of KRW 4,000,000 (foreign company) account transfer

Payment of 15,000,000 won in cash on December 15, 2009 shall be made on January 25, 2010. 10,000,000 (foreign company) account transfer

Cash payments of KRW 2,00,000 on December 28, 2009

E) At the time of the tax investigation, the amendedCC issued a false tax invoice with excessive sales.

At the time of the declaration of value-added tax, the fact that the list of the total tax invoice by buyer was falsely prepared and submitted was led to confession, and among the facts charged, the fact that the non-party company issued to the plaintiff a false tax invoice equivalent to KRW 86,870,971, as listed below, includes a false statement of tax invoice

2) Data related to the purchase and transaction of this case

The Plaintiff purchased iron bars from the non-party company through the purchase transaction of this case and paid the price as indicated below in order to secure the steel bars necessary for the construction of the Seoul 00-Gu 00 00 dong neighborhood living facilities and the new construction of the business facilities, which were in progress from October 2009, submitted a copy of the passbook, etc., and the detailed details are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 6 through 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, and Eul 2 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

On the other hand, the following circumstances are established by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as revealed earlier. ① By-laws, the representative of the non-party company, the other party to the purchase transaction of this case, was issued a summary order of fine of 15 million won due to suspected facts that the non-party company issued a false tax invoice and excessively appropriated sales and falsely prepared and submitted a list of total tax invoices by customer at the time of the return of value-added tax. At the time of the tax investigation, the changedCC issued a false copy of the tax invoice of KRW 86,870,971 to the plaintiff. ② The date and amount stated in the tax invoice issued by the non-party company, are different from the date on which the non-party company asserted that the non-party company paid the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company paid the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company the non-party company's sales transaction of this case.

3. Conclusion

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

2. Additional determination

The plaintiff must prove that the purchase transaction of this case constitutes a processing transaction.

The defendant asserts that the above points can not be recognized only with the evidence submitted by the defendant, and that the purchase transaction of this case constitutes real transactions in light of all the circumstances.

On the other hand, in the event that a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer for value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared in a false manner without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and it is proved to the extent that it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed, and that the transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer is proved to the extent that it is reasonable, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and evidence, as to the actual transaction with a supplier listed in the tax invoice, needs to prove it (referring to Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439 Decided August 20, 209, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, the health team, the facts of recognition as seen earlier, and the evidentiary evidence; and

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 21, 23 and Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 6, and 7, the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the representative of the non-party company is selected as the subject of tax investigation upon the prosecutor's office having requested the district tax office having jurisdiction over the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the course of investigating the case against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. It is recognized that the changedCC received money from the head of the company in excess of the false tax invoice in order to obtain loans in the course of the tax investigation and investigation, and transferred the money after deducting value-added tax to the personal account, or that it was issued only through a false tax invoice again. The non-party company has consistently stated that it was difficult for the plaintiff to receive the purchase price from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 for a more specific and consistent period than 10 years since the date it was issued to the non-party 1.

proof may be deemed to have been proved.

Therefore, the plaintiff proves that the non-party company was actually engaged in the non-party company's non-party business;

Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 21 and 23 (including branch numbers in case of additional numbers) and the video of Gap evidence No. 22 are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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