Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap56768

It is difficult to regard gold transactions as normal transactions.

Considering the existence of a special relationship, it cannot be deemed that an actual transaction was made in light of the empirical rule, such as the doubt as to whether there was an intention to revise the occupation of the gold-type in question, the method of paying the price is proportional or inconsistent with evidence, etc., and it cannot be deemed that an actual transaction was made regardless of the prosecutor’s

2014Nu51502 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAAA

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap56768 decided May 1, 2014

September 17, 2014

October 29, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2008 against the plaintiff on July 4, 2012 is revoked, each disposition of the second term of 2008 ○○○○, corporate tax for 2008, and corporate tax for 2009 ○○○ is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in particular, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Summary of the argument

The Plaintiff and BBBB BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”) are not false, but in fact gold-type purchase and resale of this content. From January 2008, the Plaintiff received from BBB’s Internet phone license production and took over the supply business, and purchased the instant gold-type from BBB for that production. However, due to the characteristics of the vertical-affiliated production structure, the Plaintiff was given the possession of the relevant gold-type to the private company by the occupancy revision. Considering the characteristics of the electronic parts industry and the fact that the Plaintiff actually engaged in production by using the gold-type type purchased by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should not be readily concluded that the purchase price was paid at a certain time differently from the original terms and conditions of the contract, or that the unpaid purchase price was settled by offsetting the relevant bonds at the time of resale, and the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence that the instant gold-type transaction was false, and thus, the disposition of this case should be revoked.

B. Determination

1) In the event that a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, which is sufficiently proven by the tax authority as to whether it is an actual expense, and the purpose of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment thereof have been proved to a considerable extent, a taxpayer who is easy to present books and evidence, etc. as to the fact that such expenses have been actually paid, need to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009). In addition, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax disposition, the burden of proving the fact requiring taxation should be the person imposing the tax, unless the other party proves the fact that the fact in question is not eligible for the application of the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was unlawful disposition that failed to meet the requirements for taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 200

2) In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, it is sufficient to view the gold transaction in this case as false. The purchase tax invoice received in the same content is also deemed to be a false tax invoice. It is sufficient to view the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as different from the fact, and it is difficult to view otherwise even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was examined, the Plaintiff’s assertion in a different purport is rejected

In other words, on August 31, 2008, the Plaintiff issued a purchase tax invoice by purchasing Wireless IP 5000, Wireless IP 3000, B2, WPU-700, WPU-700, WPU-7700 parts gold amount from BB on August 31, 2008.

② However, with respect to this portion of the gold-type transaction at the time of the investigation by the tax authorities, the representative director of BB made a statement that all of the gold-type transactions were gold-type transactions subject to destruction for which the period of mass production expires, and that the gold-type transactions were issued and delivered a tax invoice after being processed in the form of sale to the Plaintiff without processing expenses due to the aggravation of profitability, etc., and that, after selling in 2008, the amount was re-purchaseed in the same amount as in 2009, the actual sales amount was not paid off.

③ Also, at the time of the instant transaction, DD also stated that the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of the instant transaction was set off and disposed of the accounts receivable for purchase tax invoices and accounts receivable for sales tax invoices on August 31, 2008 at the tax authority’s investigation, and that the purchase price was not actually paid.

④ As to this, the Plaintiff alleged that the amount of money was actually paid to BB, and that only the unpaid balance was offset at the time of resale, and submitted evidence Nos. 19 through 21, and evidence No. 39 (including paper numbers) etc. However, the payment date of the above transaction details, etc. is not consistent with the transaction date of this case as of March 3, 2009 and March 30, 2009, and there is no objective data to confirm which nominal money was paid. Thus, it is difficult to reject all the above statements made by CCC or DD and to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.

④ In addition, the gold type of this case has expired the actual mass production period, and even if the details of transactions submitted by the Plaintiff (Evidence No. 12-1 to 12 of Evidence A), the parts produced in Wireless IP500, Wireless IP5000, WPU-7000, and WPU-7000 are not confirmed.However, there are parts of the model, but it is not clear whether the Plaintiff bought gold in the form of gold purchase in the instant transaction, and eventually, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased gold in the amount of KRW 20 million per piece of gold, which is not used in the instant transaction, is not easily acceptable. Furthermore, BBBB purchased this again and without consideration of all depreciation costs during that period, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff purchased it at the same expense without any special grounds for justification.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.