beta
Text
1. In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant’s value-added tax and additional tax for the first period of August 8, 2011, which was owed to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2013.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff purchased B from Company B (hereinafter “B”) during the period of the first value-added tax in 2011, and received seven copies of the purchase tax invoice for KRW 2.425 billion (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and sold B on the commercial metal (hereinafter “daily metal”) and paid the purchase tax invoice for KRW 2.77,722,00 won during the first value-added tax period in 201, three copies of the supply price during the second value-added tax period in 2011, and one copy of the purchase tax invoice for KRW 357,744,00 won during the second value-added tax period in 201, to the Defendant, each of the above supply values was calculated by including the input tax amount and the value-added tax calculated by including the output tax amount.
However, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China: (a) conducted a survey on B from September 11, 2012 to April 26, 2013; and (b) determined that the instant tax invoice was processed on the data that B issues a tax invoice without actual transaction; and (c) notified the Defendant of the taxation data.
In addition, the head of Western District Tax Office conducted an investigation into the upper metal from November 24, 2012 to January 25, 2013, and determined that the purchase tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to the upper metal is also false, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.
The Defendant conducted an investigation with the Plaintiff from November 21, 2012 to July 8, 2013, and recognized that the purchase tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on a commercial metal is related to the ordinary transaction. On the other hand, the Defendant determined that the instant tax invoice was related to the processing transaction.
In addition, the Plaintiff determined that the tax invoice of KRW 50,000,000 paid to C in return for labor was not subject to deduction from the output tax amount because it was paid to C, the vice president of the Plaintiff, in return for labor.
Accordingly, on August 8, 2013, the Defendant imposes penalty tax of KRW 49,504,00 on the Plaintiff for the business year 201.