No processing or purchase may be deemed to have been made solely on the ground that the seller was accused of the material

Considering the fact that a tax invoice is not directly investigated and confirmed that the account holder issued a false tax invoice without real transactions to the Plaintiff at the time when the account holder was investigated as data, it is insufficient to presume it as a false tax invoice, and there is a burden of proof to the claimant.

Article 20 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Presentation of Tax Invoice]

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 5,358,400 on September 4, 2006 against the Plaintiff on September 4, 2006 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. The Plaintiff, who was engaged in retail business of precious metals, etc. with the trade name “○○○○○○○ Dong,” from ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○, and filed a deduction of five copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 26,672,045 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from the total value of supply from July 26, 2001 to December 10, 2004, as listed in the following table, on five occasions during the period from July 26, 2001 to December 10, 204.

(amount-unit cost)

Date of transaction

Purchase

Value of Supply

Amount of tax

Total Amount

Date of payment of price

Method of payment

July 26, 2001

1

6,363,531

636,353

6,999,884

July 26, 2001

Money without passbook (○ bank ○○○○)

August 18, 2001

1

4,999,979

499,997

5,499,976

August 18, 2001

ʺ

o October 24, 2001

1

4,545,381

454,538

4,999,919

o October 24, 2001

ʺ

November 7, 2001

1

5,763,158

576,315

6,339,473

November 7, 2001

ʺ

December 10, 2001

1

4,999,976

499,999

5,499,995

December 10, 2001

ʺ

Total

5

26,672,045

2,667,202

29,339,247

B. The Defendant notified the head of ○○ Tax Office of the taxation data that ○○△△△△ issued a tax invoice without real transaction, and deemed the instant tax invoice as a different tax invoice from the fact that it was issued without real transaction, and decided and notified the Plaintiff on September 4, 2006 that the input tax amount was increased by KRW 5,358,400 for the second quarter of 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on October 30, 2006, and sought a request with the National Tax Tribunal on February 22, 2007. However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on June 8, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3-1 through 3-5, Eul 1-1 to 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as a small business proprietor who manufactures and sells a counter-influor, etc., he purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the tax invoice of this case from ○○ through ○ju, and transferred all of the proceeds to ○○○○○ Accounting Account, etc., but concluded that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without real transactions solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was an enterprise which was accused of ○○ △△ Accounting Data. The Defendant’s disposition of this case 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 be said that the other party can prove the circumstances where the pertinent facts in question are not eligible for the application

According to the statement on this case, ○○○○○○ Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation on the charge of ○○○○○○ Tax Office’s material for the period from March 5, 2001 to December 31, 2003; (b) determined ○○○○○ Tax Office as material; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the submission of explanatory data on the instant tax invoice, which was issued by ○○○○○○ Tax Office, based on the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s submission of explanatory data on the instant tax invoice, including the above recognized evidence and the evidence Nos. 4-1 to 7-12; and (d) it is difficult to view that ○○○○ Tax Office issued ○○○○ Tax Office’s input tax invoice to the extent that ○○○○ Tax Office did not directly purchase or sell the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff on the grounds that ○○○ Tax Office’s purchase or sale of the instant tax invoice to the extent that ○○○○ Tax Office did not directly sell the instant product to the Plaintiff.

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.