Whether it constitutes a processed purchase tax invoice issued by an enterprise at present

The burden of proof of false tax invoices is, in principle, in the investigating agency, and the investigating agency's evidence is insufficient, so it cannot be recognized as false tax invoices.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2002 against the Plaintiff on June 3, 2006, KRW 692,110, value-added tax for the second period of 2002, KRW 11,682,180, value-added tax for the second period of 203, KRW 10,825,150, value-added tax for the second period of 2003, KRW 10,000, KRW 4,208,40, and KRW 5,323,010 for the second period of 204, respectively.

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 August 22, 200 to 200, the Plaintiff sold precious metals, etc. with the trade name, “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc. located in ○○○○○○○○○○○, Inc., Ltd., in the course of the taxable period from No. 1 to 2004, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice on the aggregate of the supply values as indicated below (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from ○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○○○○”) during the taxable period from 1 to 2004, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the aggregate of the supply values by taxable period, as the input tax amount.

Classification

Taxation Period

Value of the purchase tax invoice (total)

1

1, 2002

3,636,00 won

2

Second 2002

64,489,00 won

3

1, 2003

6,949,00 won

4

203

54,200,000 won

5

1, 2004

30,000,000 won

6

204 Second Period

54,500,000 won

B. However, on June 3, 2006, the Defendant deemed that the tax invoice of this case was issued without a real transaction because the so-called data constitutes the so-called data, and issued false tax invoices. On June 3, 2006, the Defendant determined the total determined tax amount of value-added tax for each taxable period including additional tax by deducting the input tax amount from the total determined tax amount, and notified the additional amount of value-added tax after deducting the already paid tax amount from the said total determined tax amount.

Classification

(1) Additional tax shall be levied.

(2) Total determined tax amount.

(3) The already paid tax amount.

(4) Additional notified tax amount.

1, 2002

328,512

2,386,217

1,694,105

692,110

Second 2002

5,233,282

13,520,720

1,838,537

11,682,180

1, 2003

3,411,506

12,33,702

2,266,915

10,066,780

203

1,514,359

7,261,228

2,436,077

4,825,150

1, 2004

1,208,400

6,076,378

1,867,972

4,208,400

204 Second Period

1,373,020

8,202,487

2,879,474

5,323,010

C. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions is subject to the imposition of value-added tax as indicated on June 3, 2006, as indicated on the list (2). However, the Plaintiff seeks to revoke only the part of each additional notice in excess of the amount indicated in the table (3) among those dispositions, as the Plaintiff seeks to revoke the part of each additional notice in the table (4). Thus, each of the instant dispositions is subject to the imposition of each additional notice.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap2-1 and 6, Eul 1-1 and 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

As to the Defendant’s assertion that each of the dispositions of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case denying the input tax deduction is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without real transaction, even though it purchased the tax invoice of this case from ○○○○○.

(b) Related statutes;

[Valued Tax]

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, excluding the input tax amount in such

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

2. Not more than the omission;

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false shall, in principle, be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions based on direct evidence or all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 85Nu515, Mar. 24, 1987).

Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the tax invoice of this case on whether the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice that is not accompanied by a real transaction only with Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the records Nos. 3, 4-1 through 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 3, the head of ○○ Tax Office filed an accusation against the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the crime of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) on charges that ○○○○○○○○○'s total purchase amount of KRW 3.7.6 billion during the taxable period from 1st to 1st 2001, and the total purchase amount of KRW 37.31 million,000,000,0000,000 won without a real transaction.

(2) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions denying the input tax deduction of the instant tax invoice on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without a real transaction is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.