Cho High Court Decision 2009Du4265 ( October 16, 2010)

Whether or not a false tax invoice concerning wholesale and retail business of drugs has been received

Since it is reasonable to prove that false tax invoices have been prepared as if they were supplied without being supplied with actual drugs, it is difficult to recognize only the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to prove that there was an actual transaction by the relevant evidence and data.

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

○○ Pamp Co., Ltd.

Director of the District Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 173,328,470 (including additional tax) for the second term portion of 2006 against the Plaintiff on September 10, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On September 12, 2006, the Plaintiff was a company established mainly for drug wholesale business, etc., and received three copies of the purchase tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 1,182,13,237 and the purchase tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 118,213,323 during 206 (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”), and when filing a return on value-added tax for the above period to the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed a return by deducting the tax amount under each of the tax invoices of this case from the output tax amount as the input tax amount.

B. The Defendant: (a) on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices constituted a false tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from △△△ Korea without any actual transaction; (b) deducted the said input tax amount for the second period of 2006 from the output tax amount for the said period; (c) corrected the Plaintiff’s value-added tax amount; and (d) imposed and notified the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on September 10, 2009, KRW 173,328,470 (including additional tax) for the second period of 206 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Written Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3

2. Referral and Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually received goods from △△ Korea and accordingly received each of the instant tax invoices. Therefore, each of the instant tax invoices is not false. Therefore, the instant dispositions made on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices is false, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In full view of the above evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8, and part of Gap evidence No. 6, the facts are acknowledged below the whole purport of the pleadings. In light of the above evidence, it is difficult to believe that the above evidence No. 8 and part of Gap evidence No. 6 are not stated.

(A) At the second half of 2006, the Plaintiff received each of the instant tax invoices from the supplier of △△ Korea, which ordered the drugs to ParkA and received the drugs from ParkA, and then received the instant tax invoices from △△ Korea. At that time, ParkA was not an employee of △△ Korea, and the Plaintiff was also aware of such fact, which is the representative director of the Plaintiff.

(B) △△△ Korea supplied goods to the customer and then prepared a daily trading statement at the business department and warehouse and entered the details into the computer, the accounting department has issued a tax invoice by compiling the sales details at the end of each month and sent them by mail to each customer.

(c)However, △△ Korea's computer code does not include the Plaintiff's input, but does not remain a daily trading statement or computerized data prepared by the Plaintiff in the business department or warehouse, and the instant tax invoice was issued by the accounting department in accordance with the instructions of all group prior to the filing of value-added tax, and each of the instant tax invoices was sent from △△ Korea to the Plaintiff by facsimile instead of by mail to the Plaintiff.

(라)원고는 ☐☐약품 주식회사 등 정상적인 거래업체로부터의 의약품 매입대금을 전부법인통장으로 이체하는 방법으로 지급하였으나, 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 매입대금을 ◇◇코리아에게 법인통장으로 이체하여 지급하지 않았다.

(E) △△△ Korea, while increasing its capital through foreign capital in 2007 and replacing its representative director, cancelled and corrected the sales revenue of 2005 and 2006, which was calculated as traded in cash, on the ground that the sales revenue of 2005 and 10.4 billion won was managed in installments, and filed a claim for correction of value-added tax and corporate tax for the above period, and the sales revenue reported as cancelled are also included in the sales revenue of this case.

(F) Even during the first half of 2007, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice equivalent to the supply price of 230,345,000 won from △△△ Korea, and filed a revised return on value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount equivalent to the above supply price from the output tax amount. However, the Plaintiff filed a revised return on value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount equivalent to the above supply price from the output tax amount. However, upon receiving a request from the tax authority to clarify whether the above

(2) According to the above facts, each of the tax invoices in this case has been proved to the extent that it can be reasonably acceptable to accept the fact that the tax invoices in this case were prepared as if they were supplied with the actual medicine from △△ Korea without being supplied with the actual medicine. Therefore, in order to determine that each of the tax invoices in this case is not false, the plaintiff must prove, based on the relevant evidence and data, that there was an actual transaction equivalent to the corresponding value of each of the tax invoices in this case with △△ Korea (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997), and the statements in Gap evidence 5, 7, and

Therefore, the disposition of this case based on the premise that each of the tax invoices of this case was prepared by processing without actual transaction is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3.In conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.