Early High Court Decision 2012Nu20013 ( October 22, 2012)

Since it is not possible to present objective evidence that the gold bullion was purchased, it shall be deemed to be a tax invoice issued without real transactions.

As a result of the tax investigation, it cannot be recognized that the tax invoice was issued based on the real transaction because the transaction partner was confirmed as data, and the plaintiff did not present objective evidence to verify the flow of the actual transaction that the plaintiff purchased gold bullion.

2012Guhap5726 global income and disposition

KoreaA

port of origin

November 21, 2012

December 12, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 of global income tax for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 1, 1990 to August 10, 2009, the Plaintiff is a business operator who engages in the manufacturing of precious metal products with the trade name of Djuice from 00 Odong, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOdong 000 OO building.

B. When the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount of global income tax for the year 2006 on May 15, 2007, the Plaintiff calculated the total value of 000 won (=00 won of the supply value on January 4, 2006 + 000 won of the supply value + 000 won of the supply value on February 15, 2006 + 000 won of the supply value on February 22, 2006) that was received three times from EEEd Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EEd”) in the first taxable period of the value of the value of the purchase tax for the first taxable period of the Value Added (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from June 19, 2006 to March 22, 2007, performed tax investigation with respect to EEEd, confirmed EEd as data and accused the investigation agency on Oct. 17, 2007, notified the head of the Gangnam District Tax Office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s business place of the taxation data that the instant tax invoice was issued without real transaction, and on Feb. 4, 2010, the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office denied the input tax deduction of the instant tax invoice, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 000 of the value-added tax amount for the first time in 206 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On December 10, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the foregoing taxation data from the Gangnam-gu Head of the tax office (hereinafter “instant disposition”) and notified the Plaintiff of the global income tax amounting to KRW 000 on December 10, 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Board of Audit and Inspection, and the Board of Audit and Inspection dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for examination on February 22, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased gold bullion equivalent to 3.2kg from EEted on January 4, 2006, February 15, 2006, and February 22, 2006 (referring to gold bullion with net level of 9.5% or more in the state of raw materials, such as gold leader and dud; hereinafter referred to as “the gold bullion in this case”) and processed it, used to make the products to be exported overseas, and deposited the purchase price into the deposit account of EEEd, and received the tax invoice in this case. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition under the premise that the tax invoice in this case was issued without real transaction is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

.

C. Determination

(1) Relevant legal principles

The delivery or transfer of goods under Article 6(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) includes all acts of transferring the authority to use and consume the goods, regardless of the existence of actual profits. In such cases, where the tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction is a nominal transaction for which no actual delivery or transfer of the goods is made, the burden of proving that the tax invoice constitutes “unlawful tax invoice” under Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act for which the deduction of the input tax amount is denied is borne by the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). However, where the tax authority reasonably proves that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the actual transaction based on evidence or all the circumstances, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the actual transaction and present its status as a taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu196.

(2) As to whether the instant tax invoice was issued without real transaction

(가) 갑 제1호증， 갑 제2호증의 2， 갑 제5호증， 갑 제7호증， 갑 제18호증의 1 내지 4， 갑 제24호증의 1， 2， 갑 제27호증， 을 제1호증， 을 제2호증， 을 제3호증의 1 내지 3， 을 제4호증의 1 내지 3， 을 제5호증의 1 내지 4， 을 제6호증의 1 내지 3，을 제7호증， 을 제8호증의 1 내지 4， 을 제9호증의 1， 4의 각 기재， 증인 김FF의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 ① 서울지방국세청장의 EE골드에 대한 세무조사 결과 EE골드의 매입처인 주식회사 GG골드(이하 'GG골드'라고 한다)는 2005. 3. 29. 개업한 이후 별다른 사업실적이 없다가 매입액은 전혀 없이 매출액만 000원으로 신고하면서 위 매출액에 대한 세금계산서는 모두 EE골드에 대하여 발행된 것으로 2006년 제1기 부가가치세 예정신고를 하였고， 부가가치세 000원을 납 부하지 아니하였으며，종로세무서의 사업자등록 일제 점검 과정에서 2006. 4. 26.자로 직권으로 폐업처리되었고，2006년 제1기 부가가치세 확정신고를 하지 않았으며，한편 EE골드는 2006년 제1기 부가가치세 과세기간에 GG골드로부터 전체 매입액 000원의 대부분에 해당하는 000원의 매입세금계산서를 교부받은 것으로 신고한 사실，② 원고는 EE골드의 예금계화로 2006. 1. 4. 18，000원， 2006. 2. 15. 000원， 2006. 2. 22. 000원을 각 입금하였는데，원고가 입금 한 위 각 금원은 곧바로 GG골드의 예금계좌로 다시 입금되었고，한편 EE골드가 2006. 1. 1.부터 2006. 4. 10.까지 GG골드의 예금계좌로 입금한 약 000 원은 모두 현금으로 인출된 사실，③ 이에 서울지방국세청장은 GG골드， EE골드 등을 자료상으로 확정하여 GG골드와 그 대표이사인 최HH， EE골드와 그 대표이사인 김FF 등을 수사기관에 고발하였으나， EE골드와 김FF에 대한 고발사건은 최 HH의 소재불명으로 참고인중지 상태인 사실，④ 원고는 2006년의 총수입금액을 000원으로，필요경비를 000원으로，소득금액을 000원으로，산출 세액을 000원으로 하여 2006년 귀속 종합소득세 과세표준 및 세액을 신고하였고，종합소득세신고서에 첨부된 표준원가명세서에는 당기 재료매입액이 000원으로 기재되어 있는 사실，⑤ 그러나 원고는 2006년 제1기 부가가치세 예정신고부터 2006년 제2기 부가가치세 확정신고까지 위 당기 재료매입액에 현저히 미치지 못하는 합계 000원을 매입세액으로 신고한 사실，⑥ 서울지방국세청장은 EE골드의 직원 이II이 수기로 작성한 현금출납부를 토대로 EE골드의 무자료 매출누락 부분 을 확인하였으나，이러한 매출누락은 EE골드가 분석금과 고금을 무자료로 매입하여 주식회사 JJJ골드와 오뜨에 매출한 것으로 확인되었을 뿐 EE골드가 원고와도 무자료 거래를 한 것으로 확인되지는 않았던 사실，⑦ 원고는 이 사건 선행 처분과 관련 하여 서울지방국세청장에게 이의신청을 하였으나 원고의 이의신청이 2010. 7. 16. 기각 되었고， 원고가 이 사건 선행 처분의 취소를 구하는 내용의 소를 제기하지 아니하여 이 사건 선행 처분이 확정된 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로， EE골드와 GG골드 사이 의 세금계산서 교부내역과 예금거래내역， 원고와 EE골드 사이의 예금거래내역 등을 비롯하여 서울지방국세청장의 EE골드에 대한 전반적인 세무조사 결과에다 원고가 EE골드로부터 매입하였다는 이 사건 금지금의 실물흐름을 확인할 수 있는 수불대장(일 자별 금지금의 매입내역 및 출고내역， 입 ・ 출고 수량 등이 기재된 장부)， 금지금의 사 용량 및 재고수량이 기재된 기별재고현황 등과 같은 객관적인 증빙자료를 제시하지 못 하는 사정 등을 종합하면， 피고는 이 사건 세금계산서가 실물거래를 동반하지 아니한 것이라는 등의 허위성에 관하여 합리적으로 수긍할 수 있을 정도로 상당한 입증을 하 였다고 할 것이다.

(B) Evidence that the Plaintiff had conducted real transactions with the EEd, and evidence 1 to 3G 2 of evidence No. 8 (the 2006.1.4, and evidence No. 1 to 206.2 of evidence No. 9 (the delivery certificate for suppliers that the EEd were supplied to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2006, and February 2, 2006), evidence No. 10 of evidence No. 11 to 4 (the NAF statement at the time of the investigation by the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office), evidence No. 10, evidence No. 2 of evidence No. 11, evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 11, No. 5, No. 7, No. 5, No. 7, No. 5, No.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice issued without real transaction between EEd and EEd, and the instant disposition by the Defendant is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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