early 2010 Heavy0440 ( October 17, 2011)

Each disposition of this case in which value-added tax, etc. is corrected by deeming it as a false tax invoice received without real transactions

It can be fully recognized that the Plaintiff participated in a round-over transaction for the purpose of getting loans, etc. from the bank by increasing sales revenue and received the tax invoice of this case by fraudulent means without real transaction. Each disposition of this case which corrected the increase in value-added tax and corporate tax by deeming the tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice received without real

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Revocation of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, 10325

AAABK Co., Ltd.

Head of Si Tax Office

April 13, 2012

May 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 00 on July 6, 2009, KRW 000 on the first half of 2006, KRW 000 on the second half of 2006, KRW 000 on the first half of 2007, and KRW 000 on the second half of 2007, KRW 00 on the corporate tax for 2006 and KRW 000 on the corporate tax for 2006, and KRW 00 on the corporate tax for 2007.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 2006 to December 2007, the Plaintiff, a company engaged in chemical medicine sales, etc., issued purchase tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 000,000 in total of the supply values from DDR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DDR”), as indicated below, and issued and issued sales tax invoices to EEchemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Echemical”) and FF Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F Korea”), and filed a tax return on the sales and sales tax invoices under the instant tax invoices to the Defendant by entering the sales and sales tax invoices in the aggregate list of individual sales and sales tax invoices, and filing a tax return on the relevant value-added tax and corporate tax with the Defendant.

B. However, on July 6, 2009, the Defendant applied the additional tax on the aggregate of the tax invoices under Article 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007, hereinafter the same shall apply) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant tax invoice constitutes the processed tax invoice received without actual transaction, and applied the additional tax on the aggregate of the tax invoices under Article 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007, 00 won of value-added tax for the first period of January 200, and 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of February 200, and 00 won of value-added tax for the second period of February 200 and 200 won of value-added tax for the second period of 207, respectively, and notified the Plaintiff of the difference between the net income reported by the Plaintiff and the estimated tax base of corporate tax for each business year (hereinafter referred to 20007.).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 17, 201, but the said claim was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including household numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 2-1, and Eul evidence 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually purchased chemical drugs, etc. from DD companies as stated in the instant tax invoice, and supplied them to EEchemical and FF Korea. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s deeming the said tax invoice as a processing tax invoice received without real transaction and thus, deemed it unlawful for the Defendant to take each of the instant dispositions against the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts, and "the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts." This refers to cases where the necessary entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the transaction concerning the goods or services, and the actual supplier and the supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Further, the tax invoice shall be delivered to the entrepreneur who supplies the goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the supplier shall be issued the tax invoice to the entrepreneur who supplies the goods or services, and the supplier shall be deemed to be a person who actually performs the transaction of goods or services with the entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1758, Jul. 27, 2008).

(2) Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s total tax invoice No. 3, and No. 2, and No. 3, and No. 1 through No. 3, were issued by the court of first instance for the purpose of this case’s 00, and that there were 00,000,000,000 (the total tax invoice No. 2,00,000,000,000) were supplied to the Plaintiff for the purpose of this case’s 0,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000).

(3) Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case by the Defendant, which corrected the increase in the value-added tax and corporate tax against the Plaintiff, is legitimate by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice received without a real transaction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.