Examination Income 2008-0161 (Law No. 19, 2009)

The fact that a real transaction was determined by data cannot be said to have been made.

The fact that the High Binding Co., Ltd. filed a complaint against a suspect of material facts but was not confirmed by the plaintiff at the time of the investigation, the fact that the investigation agency issued a disposition that the plaintiff was suspected of having been suspected, and the fact that the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the High Iron was remitted to the purchaser, and the disposition

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 205,016,120 against the Plaintiff on July 9, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 재생재료수입판매업 등을 목적으로 2005. 5. 2. 설립된 ★★금속 주식회사(이하, '★★금속'이라고 한다)는 2006년 2기 부가가치세 과세기간 중 ☆☆고물상으로부터 아래와 같이 3회에 걸쳐 공급가액 합계 481,487,900원의 매입세금계산서(이하, '이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)를 수취하였다.

나. ○○세무서장은 ☆☆고물상에 대한 세무조사 결과 이 사건 세금계산서는 실물거래없이 발행ㆍ교부되었음을 확인한 후 2007. 6. 대표자 박●●을 검찰에 고발하고, ★★금속 관할 세무서인 남양주세무서에 과세자료를 통보하였다.

다. 피고는 위 자료에 근거하여 2008. 1. 2. ★★금속에게 2006 사업연도 법인세 (166,194,751원) 및 2006년 2기 부가가치세를 경정ㆍ고지하였고, 2008. 1. 8. ★★금속 의 대표이사인 원고에게 대표자 상여처분(529,635,700원)을 하였으며, 2008. 7. 1. 위 상여처분된 금액에 기초하여 원고에게 종합소득세 205,016,124원을 경정ㆍ고지(이하, '이 사건 처분'이라고 한다)하였다.

D. The Plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 7, 2008, but was dismissed on January 19, 2009, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 16, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering that the fact of purchase of scrap metal has been confirmed by the improvement sheet and the entry sheet, and that the fact of payment has been confirmed by the transaction details of passbooks, the instant tax invoice is based on the actual transaction, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a different tax invoice from the fact is unlawful.

B. 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 Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

2) According to the statement of evidence Nos. 2 and 2-2 of this case, the head of ○○ Tax Office conducted a fact-finding survey on the high water of △△△△△ in the taxable period of 2006 on the part of the Plaintiff, etc., that the entire tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff, etc., including the instant tax invoice, shall be deemed to be a false tax invoice that was received without real transaction, and the △△△△△, a representative of which was accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaderss Act, shall be deemed to have been accused of the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Tax Evaders, but the overall purport of the arguments was comprehensively taken into account as to whether the above tax invoice Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (including the serial number) was not found to have been issued on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of the ○○○ Tax Office’s investigation, and the Plaintiff could not be found to have been issued on the part of the Plaintiff’s deposit account of △△△ in the name of the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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