National High Court Decision 2007west3836 (Law No. 87.09)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual gold bullion was purchased for this disposition through a processing transaction

It is judged that a false tax invoice has been issued without a real transaction because the other party was convicted of issuance of a false tax invoice, that the transaction between three years takes most the cash transaction method, and that a false tax invoice has been issued in relation to the gold bullion transaction.

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

1. The part exceeding 28,613,530 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 28,726,810 won against the Plaintiff on April 4, 2007 and the part exceeding 9,285,730 won among the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 9,304,610 won from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 45,054,980 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the second term portion of year 2001 against the Plaintiff on April 4, 2007, value-added tax of KRW 98,663,910 for the second term portion of year 202, value-added tax of KRW 28,726,810 for the second term portion of year 2003, value-added tax of KRW 48,340,720 for the first term portion of year 203, value-added tax of KRW 36,290,960 for the second term portion of year 203, value-added tax of KRW 20,478,70 for the first term portion of year 204, ② Corporate tax of KRW 148,300 for the period from July 1, 201 to June 30, 2002, respectively.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation operating the manufacturing business of precious metal, new-gu and related products. During the taxable period from February 2, 2001 to January 2004, the Plaintiff received 1,437,530,000 tax invoices on the present purchase of 1,437,530,000 won (hereinafter referred to as “each of the tax invoices of this case”) from the corporation in charge of the manufacturing business, and filed and paid each value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

B. On April 4, 2007, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff without real transaction; and (b) did not deduct the input tax amount for KRW 1,438,474,000 (the value of each of the instant tax invoices plus one tax invoice of KRW 944,00 on December 12, 200) from the total value of supply; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of value-added tax as stated in the notice of claim in the Plaintiff’s notice of claim (hereinafter “each of the instant disposition imposing value-added tax”); (d) excluded the relevant purchase amount from the deductible expenses; and (e) notified the correction and notification of corporate tax as stated in the notice of claim in the notice of claim (hereinafter “each of the instant disposition imposing corporate tax”).

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1 through 276, Gap evidence 18, Eul evidence 19-1 through 6, Gap evidence 20-1 through 6, Gap evidence 21-1 through 6, Gap evidence 22-1 through 7, Gap evidence 23-1 through 6, Gap evidence 24-1 through 7, Gap evidence 25-26-1 through 7, Gap evidence 27-1 through 7, Gap evidence 28-1 through 6, Eul evidence 29-1 through 6, Eul evidence 1-1 through 6, Eul evidence 1-1 through 6, Eul evidence 29-1 through 6, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1-2, 3, the purport of whole oral pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of this case are proper; and

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) The part concerning the tax invoice of KRW 944,00 on December 12, 2002, which does not actually exist among the dispositions of this case, is unlawful.

(2) The Plaintiff: (a) purchased the funds from the △△△△ in fact and paid the funds in cash; and (b) sold them after having it transferred them to the three industries; and (c) thus, each of the instant dispositions, based on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices is a processing transaction,

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 조★★는 2001. 1. 16. ☆☆금은을 설립하여 2002. 7. 2.까지 이를 운영하였고, 김○○는 2002. 7. 2.부터 폐업일인 2004. 6. 5.까지 자신의 처인 권●●을 대표이사로 하여 이를 실질적으로 운영하였다.

(2) 서울지방국세청은 ☆☆금은의 자료상 혐의에 대하여 조사한 결과, ☆☆금은이 2001년도 1기부터 2004년도 1기까지의 부가가치세 과세기간 중에 신고한 매출액과 매입액 중 상당부분이 가공매출과 가공매입으로 드러나자, ☆☆금은을 자료상으로 확정하고 검찰에 조★★와 김○○ 등을 고발하는 한편, 피고 등 과세관청에 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 포함한 가공거래내역을 과세자료로 통보하였다.

(3) On November 2, 2004, Kim ○-○ recognized that each of the instant tax invoices prepared and issued to the Plaintiff was due to a processing transaction without real transactions, upon receiving an investigation from a tax official belonging to the Seoul Regional Tax Office related to the facts charged in the data of the △△ in question.

(4) 조★★와 김○○는 원고를 포함한 상당수의 업체에 지금을 실제로 판매한 것처럼 가장한 다음 그와 같은 내용의 이 사건 세금계산서를 포함한 허위 매출세금계산서를 작성하여 교부하였다는 등의 범죄사실로 기소되어, 김○○는 서울서부지방법원 2004고합204, 385(병합)호로 유죄 판결을 선고받아 그 판결이 확정되었고, 조★★는 서울서부지방법원 2004고합368, 2005고합2, 42, 49(병합)호로 유죄 판결을 선고받고, 그 항소심과 상고심의 판결을 거쳐 그 항소심 유죄 판결이 확정되었다.

(5) On March 2, 2004, a cashier’s check was withdrawn at a par value of KRW 6,138,000 from the Plaintiff’s account, and on the same day, the check was deposited in the account of △△△△ on the same day.

(6) 한편, 위 형사사건 등을 통해 ☆☆금은은 가공의 매출처에 허위의 세금계산서를 작성ㆍ교부한 후 실제로 매출이 있었던 것처럼 위장하기 위하여 ☆☆금은의 직원인 최◎◎을 시켜 ��������은행 종로지점에서 위 매출처의 명의로 매출대금을 ☆☆금은의 계좌에 대리 입금하는 등의 방법을 사용한 것으로 드러났는데, 위 최◎◎은 2002. 7. 3.부터 2004. 3. 26.까지 사이에 총 74회에 걸쳐 이 사건 각 세금계산서와 관련하여 원고 명의로 ☆☆금은의 예금계좌에 합계 437,569,400원을 무통장입금 방식으로 대리 입금하였다.

[인정근거] 다툼이 없는 사실, 을 6, 7, 8호증, 을 9호증의 1, 2, 을 11호증, 을 12호증의 1 내지 20, 이 법원의 ��������은행 종로지점에 대한 사실조회결과, 변론 전체의 취지

D. Determination

(1) Determination on the portion of tax invoice of KRW 944,00,000 on December 12, 2002

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount of KRW 1,437,530,00 from the output tax amount to the total supply amount of KRW 1,437,530,000 for each of the tax invoices of this case, and filed and paid each value-added tax. Thus, the amount above should be the amount subject

However, since the Defendant added a tax invoice of KRW 944,00 on December 12, 200, the supply price of KRW 944,000, which was not reported by the Plaintiff as the input tax amount, and added a tax invoice of KRW 1,438,474,00 to a tax invoice of KRW 271, the total supply price of KRW 1,438,474,000, in addition to the tax invoice of KRW 1,438,000, among the dispositions of each of the instant case, is unlawful in the part concerning the tax invoice of KRW 94,00

Therefore, if the supply value of 944,000 won as of December 12, 2002 is excluded from the non-deduction of input tax and non-deductible of deductible expenses, the legitimate tax amount of the value-added tax for the second period portion of 2002 shall be 28,613,530 won, and the legitimate tax amount of the corporate tax from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 shall be 9,285,730 won (the calculation details shall be the same as the "tax amount calculation" stated in the attached Form).

(2) Whether the transaction of 270 copies of the instant tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) is a processed transaction

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax shall be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirement have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was illegal disposition, unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

이 사건의 경우, 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 작성ㆍ교부한 ☆☆금은이 자료상으로 고발되어 그 실질적 운영자인 조★★와 김○○가 이 사건 세금계산서 등 허위의 매출세금계산서를 작성ㆍ교부하였다는 등의 범죄사실로 유죄판결을 선고받아 확정된 점, 원고와 ☆☆금은의 약 3년간의 거의 모든 거래가 현금 결제방식을 취하고 있고, 2004. 3. 2. 액면금 6,138,000원의 자기앞수표가 ☆☆금은의 예금계좌에 입금되었다는 금융자료는 거래금액의 극히 일부에 불과한 점, 이 사건 각 세금계산서와 관련하여서 ☆☆금은의 직원인 최◎◎이 원고 명의로 대리입금을 한 점 등 위 인정사실에 나타난 여러 사정을 종합적으로 고려해 볼 때, 경험칙상 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 실물거래 없이 허위로 작성ㆍ교부되었다고 넉넉히 추정할 수 있다 할 것이고, 갑 3, 4호증의 각 기재 및 증인 김○○의 증언은 믿기 어려우며, 갑 5, 7호증, 갑 11 내지 15호증, 갑 17호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 및 이 법원의 각 사실조회결과만으로는 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 실제 거래에 기한 정당한 것임을 인정하기 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the purchase cost of each of the tax invoices of this case cannot be deducted as an input tax amount in the calculation of value-added tax amount from February 2, 2001 to January 2004, and it cannot be included in the calculation of corporate tax base. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that it is lawful, and the plaintiff's assertion on it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case is justified within the scope of seeking revocation of the part exceeding KRW 9,285,730 from July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 28,726,810, which is a part of the disposition of this case, and the part exceeding KRW 28,613,530 from the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 9,304,610 from July 1, 2002 to June 30, and the remaining claim is dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.