Whether it constitutes a false purchase tax invoice or not

It is insufficient to recognize that the instant tax invoice was issued due to disguised and fictitious transactions through unregistered intermediary sales, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Ultimately, the instant tax disposition is unlawful.

2006Guhap1884 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

1. ○○;

2. Maternum;

3. Do Governor; and

Head of △ District Office

1. The defendant

A. On July 21, 2005, the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2002 against the Plaintiff Lee ○○, which was 3,663,800 won, value-added tax for the first period of 2003, value-added tax 9,127,100 won, and value-added tax for the second period of 203, which was 1,886,090 won;

B. On July 21, 2005, the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2002 on the plaintiff's sonum, 3,750,700 won, value-added tax for the first period of 203, 12,246,690 won, and value-added tax for the second period of 203, 2003;

C. On July 11, 2005, the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 5,051,190 won for the second period of 2, 2003 against the Plaintiff △△△△△.

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

"가. 원고 이○○은 2002. 10. 1.부터 ▣▣시 ♧♧구 ◆◆동 159 소재 △△프라자 지하1층에서◐◐'이라는 상호로, 원고 이◎◎은 2002. 11. 13.부터 같은 장소에서∇∇∇'이라는 상호로, 원고 허◇◇은 2002. 12. 20.부터 같은 장소에서★★★★'라는 상호로 각각 유흥주점 영업을 하여 왔다.", "나. 원고들은 피고에게 2002년 2기분부터 2003년 2기분까지 부가가치세 신고를 함에 있어서 유한회사 ◎◎주류(이하◎◎주류'라고 한다) 및 주식회사 □□실업(이하□□실업'이라 한다)으로부터 아래 표 기재와 같이 각 매입세금계산서(이하이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)를 교부받아 이를 근거로 매입세액 공제를 하였다.",원고

Purchase Agency

Classification

2, 2002

1, 2003

2 2003

Total

○ ○

Macted Alcoholic Beverages

Value of Supply

2,178,500 won

64,417,472 won

86,595,972 won

Purchase Tax Amount

2,217,850 won

6,441,744 won

8,659,594 won

△ Unemployment

Value of Supply

13,901,180 won

13,901,180 won

Purchase Tax Amount

1,390,112

1,390,112

Maternate

Macted Alcoholic Beverages

Value of Supply

2,704,970 won

86,433,97 won

109,138,967 won

Purchase Tax Amount

2,270,497 won

8,643,397 won

10,913,894 won

△ Unemployment

Value of Supply

39,938,247 won

39,938,247 won

Purchase Tax Amount

3,993,775 won

3,993,775 won

Do Governor Do Governor

△ Unemployment

Value of Supply

37,226,875 won

37,226,875 won

Purchase Tax Amount

3,722,465 won

3,722,465 won

C. From August 17, 2004 to October 14 of the same year, 2004, the △△△△△△ has conducted an investigation of tracking the distribution process of diversous alcoholic beverages and △ unemployment (for each representative director, hereinafter referred to as “diversous alcoholic beverages, etc.”), and notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant tax invoice was caused by disguised processing transaction.” Accordingly, on July 21, 2005, the Defendant did not deduct the value-added tax amount as the input tax amount on the instant tax invoice, and notified the Plaintiff ○○○ of the fact that he did not deduct the amount of value-added tax for 2 years, 127,100 won for 1 year, 203, 2003, 127, 100 won for 2 years, 2003, 1,886, 090 won for 2 years, 2005, 2005, 305, 2006, 37.7, 20005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 7, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-7, Eul evidence 5-1 and Eul evidence 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

(1) Defendant

◎◎주류 등은 2001년 1기부터 2003년 2기까지의 총 주류판매금액 중 ◎◎주류의 경우에는 77%, □□실업의 경우에는 86%가 위장 · 가공거래로 인한 것으로 밝혀져 종합주류도매업 면허가 취소된 업체들이고, 원고들의 실제 거래처는 ◎◎주류 등이 아니라 미등록 주류도매업자 또는 일명 지입차주(주류소매점이나 음식점 등 고정거래처를 가진 전직 판매사원 등이 주류도매업자와 음성적으로 지입형태의 계약을 체결한 후 주류를 공급받아 자기의 고정거래처에 판매하는 무면허 주류판매업자를 말한다)인 송♧♧인데, 동인은 원고들의 주류구매용 카드의 결제계좌로 입 · 출금을 반복하여 결제내역을 조작하는 방법으로 이 사건 세금계산서와 같은 허위의 세금계산서를 만들어 내었다.

(2) Plaintiff

(A) The instant tax invoice was actually issued according to the actual transaction details through a normal transaction of alcoholic beverages, etc., and the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice through a disguised or fictitious transaction is unlawful.

(B) Even if part of the instant tax invoice was issued differently from the fact, the Plaintiffs constitute a bona fide business operator with respect to who is the actual supplier, and thus, the purchase amount under the instant tax invoice should be deducted as the input tax amount in calculating the value-added tax.

(b) Related statutes;

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added tax payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “amount of tax payable”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under each of 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 the output tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be the refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to as the “Refund tax amount”); and

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

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 items”) 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, or Article 21 (Determination and Correction);

(1) The head of a regional tax office, the head of a regional tax office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service having jurisdiction over the place of business shall determine or correct the tax base, payable or refunded amount for the taxable period, by investigation

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

4. Where there is a possibility of evading the value-added tax due to the causes as determined by the Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

【Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 60 (Scope of Purchasing Tax Amount)

(2) The cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in the proviso of Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Act means any of the following subparagraphs:

2. Where some of the necessary entries of the tax invoice delivered under Article 16 (1) of the Act are erroneously entered, but the fact of transactions is confirmed in view of the relevant tax invoice and other necessary entries or discretionary entries;

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(2) The provisions concerning the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of the income, profit, property, act or transaction.

C. Determination

In an administrative litigation seeking revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the taxation requirement fact. Thus, the tax authority should bear the burden of proving necessary expenses which are the basis of the determination of taxable income in principle. However, the tax authority must prove that a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was falsely prepared without a real transaction to a considerable extent that it is reasonable for the tax authority to dispute whether it is an actual cost, and the taxpayer's assertion and the other party to the payment have proved that such expenses were actually actually paid only when there are special circumstances such as special circumstances where the taxpayer has proved that they were false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du16406, Apr. 14, 206).

First, as evidence that seems consistent with the defendant's facts, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 32, Eul evidence Nos. 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-12, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-2, 3, 9, 11, and 12 are included in evidence Nos. 7-1 through 5, 3, 9, 12, and 6, it is necessary to look at this issue in turn.

갑 제5호증의 1 내지 32, 을 제8, 9, 11, 12호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고들의 사업장은 ▣▣시 ♧♧구 ◆◆동인데, 2002. 11. 말경부터 2003. 12.말까지 원고들의 주류대금 결제용 주류구매전용계좌로의 입금이 이루어진 곳은 △△시 ◎◎구 ♠♠동으로 서로 다르고, 위 입금액은 이 사건 세금계산서의 공급가액과 일치하지 아니하며, 입금일 다음날 입금액이 전액 출금된 사실이 인정된다.

"그러나 ①을 제2호증의 2, 을 제3호증의 1, 2는 ◎◎주류의 대표이사 김▥▥, □□실업의 대표이사 김※※의 진술을 기재한 확인서 등으로 위 내역을 전체적으로 확인받은 데에 그쳤을 뿐 거래처와의 거래내역을 일일이 대조하여 조사하지는 아니한 점, ②을제4호증의 1, 2, 을 제6호증의 1은 ◎◎주류의 경리직원 박⊙⊙ 및 □□실업의 관리이사 조◇◇의 진술을 기재한 문답서 등으로, ◎◎주류 등의 무면허 중간도매상 등과의 일반적인 주류 유통과정에 대한 진술에 불과한 점, ③을 제5호증의 1, 2는 조사담당세무공무원이 ◎◎주류 등에 대한 세무조사를 하고 작성한 조사복명서에 불과한 점,④을 제7호증의 1 내지 5는 지입차주 한◈◈, 조●●, 권△△, 고♤♤ 등의 진술을 기재한 전말서인데, 이들은 모두 원고들과 관계없는 다른 지역의 무면허 중간도매상이나 지입차주들인 점, ⑤피고는 원고들 이외의 다른 사안에서는 무면허 중간도매상 또는 지입차주가 누구인지 신원을 밝혀내고 조사를 하였던 반면, 원고들의 경우에는 그 관련 무면허 중간도매상이 누구인지 명확히 밝히지 못한 채 막연하게 송♧♧이 무면허중간도매상일 것이라는 추측을 전제로 실제 거래가 없었다고 주장만 하고 있을 뿐인 데, 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재에 의하여 인정되는 바와 같이 ◎◎주류가 2001. 1.경부터 2003. 12.경까지 송♧♧에 대한 갑종근로소득세를 원천징수 · 납부하여 왔던 사실에 비추어 보면, 서울지방국세청의 추적조사 과정에서 밝혀진 한◈◈, 조●●, 권△△, 이▣▣, 고♤♤ 등과 같은 미등록 중간주류도매상 또는 소위 지입차주들과는 달 리 송♧♧은 ◎◎주류 소속의 정식 직원으로 보이는 점, ⑤피고의 주장 및 조사결과 자체로도 ◎◎주류 등의 일부 거래는 정상거래였음이 밝혀진데다가, 원고들 명의의 주류대금 결제용 계좌에서 주류카드를 통하여 출금된 금액의 합계액과 이 사건 세금계산서상의 공급가액에 부가가치세가 포함된 공급대가 합계액이 별지 각 계산표 기재와 같이 거의 대동소이한 점,⑦원고들은 ◎◎주류의 영업사원이었던 송♧♧으로부터원고들과의 거래가 자신이 주문을 받고 배달하여 수금한 ◎◎주류 등의 정상거래였다'라는 내용의 거래사실확인서(갑 제4호증의 1 내지 3)를, ◎◎주류의 대표이사인 김▥▥과 □□실업의 대표이사인 김※※로부터경리직원의 확인서는 조사관서에서 제시한 일괄명세서의 내용에 자신이 알고 있던 위장거래자의 명단이 일부 포함되어 있는 것을 보고는 명세서 전체가 위장거래 내용인 것으로 잘못 확인하였던 것에 불과하고 원고들과는 실제 세금계산서 내역대로 거래가 있었다'는 내용의 거래사실확인서 및 경위서(자 제3호증의 1 내지 7)를 각 작성받아 제출하고 있는 점 등 제반 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고가 들고 있는 위 각 증거들만으로는 이 사건 세금계산서가 무면허 중간도매상 등을 통한 위장 · 가공거래로 인하여 발행되었음을 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 결국 이 사건 부과처분은 위법하다.",3. 결 론

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted with due reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-chul

Justices Kim Han-chul

Judge Lee Lee Sang-hoon