Whether a tax invoice received from a recipient of an accusation can be deemed as a processing tax invoice

It is not sufficient to prove that the tax invoice is false because it is not verified because it was directly investigated that the tax invoice of this case was issued without real transactions at the time of being investigated by data.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2007 of KRW 1,179,410 for the first term of 201 and KRW 3,914,170 for the first term of 2003 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 17, 1992 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff, with the name of ○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○-dong, operated precious metal, paper, wholesale and retail business with the following business entities, who were engaged in precious metal, paper, wholesale and retail business with the trade name of ○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-dong, and reported the purchase tax invoice two copies of the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “○○-si”) issued from ○○○-si, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○-si”) in the same manner as “the tax invoice of this case” as “the tax invoice of this case” at the time of filing a return on the purchase tax for the first half of 201 and the first half of 2003.

(unit won)

No.

Classification

Date of transaction

Purchase

Value of Supply

Amount of tax

Total Amount

1

1, 2001

April 26, 2001

1

5,454,579

545,457

6,000,036

2

1, 2003

April 7, 2003

1

25,115,150

2,511,515

27,626,665

B. The Defendant notified the head of ○○ Tax Office of the taxation data that ○○△△△△ issued a tax invoice without real transaction. The Defendant: (a) considered the instant tax invoice as a different tax invoice from the fact that it was issued without real transaction; and (b) deducted the input tax amount on November 1, 2007; and (c) revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,179,410 for the first term portion of value-added tax year 2001 and KRW 3,914,170 for the first term of year 203 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On January 24, 2007, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on January 24, 2007, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the disposition on August 3, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff is a small and medium retailer, who is currently engaged in processing or cutting off the instant tax invoice with precious metal, and is engaged in ordinary transactions, such as purchasing the current tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from ○ through ○○ju Ri, and depositing all of the proceeds into the account of ○○ △ju Ri, the Plaintiff concluded that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without a real transaction solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was an enterprise that was accused of the fact that it was a material fact-finding, was unlawful.

B. Determination

The burden of proving whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, or the value of supply, which is a tax base, is, in principle, the tax authorities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 2, 1992). However, only if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, it can only be said that the other party can prove the circumstances where the pertinent facts in question are not

(5) According to the facts of this case, the head of ○○○○ Tax Office: (a) purchased juice and its purchaser/seller 201 to December 31, 200; and (b) purchased juice 20-year tax invoices and its 3-year tax invoices, which were not issued by the Plaintiff; (c) obtained 3-year tax invoices and its 6-year tax invoices from the Plaintiff; and (d) obtained 1-year tax invoices and its 6-year tax invoices from the Defendant’s 20-year tax office’s 7-year tax invoices and its 7-year tax invoices; and (d) it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not receive 6-year tax invoices and its 1-year tax invoices from the Defendant’s 20-year tax office for the following reasons: (a) the Plaintiff did not appear to have received 3-year tax invoices and its 6-year tax invoices from the Defendant’s 6-year tax office’s 7-year tax invoices and its 12-year tax invoices; (b) the Plaintiff’s 2-year tax invoices and its 2-year tax invoices.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.