Whether it is a processed purchase tax invoice

At the time of issuance of sales tax invoices, the company is subject to suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to lack of evidence in the prosecutor's office's investigation, and the burden of proof different from the fact is, in principle, the investigating office, so it cannot be viewed as a false

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Tax Invoice]

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,681,390 against the Plaintiff on October 17, 2005 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of disposition;

A. On 1st taxable period of value-added tax, the Plaintiff deducted the total value of 20,000,100 won of the supply value of two tax invoices received from ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○”) during the first taxable period of value-added tax, as the input tax amount, and filed a value-added tax return.

B. On October 17, 2005, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction on the ground that the instant tax invoice was due to a processing transaction, and issued a correction and notification of KRW 2,681,390 for the first term portion of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(A) Evidence Nos. 2,3-5, and evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The parties' assertion

In regard to the Defendant’s assertion that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that it is apparent that the instant tax invoice was made through a normal transaction, and that the Defendant’s disposition, based on the premise that the instant tax invoice was received without a real transaction, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

○ Tax amount paid under Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

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) Fact of recognition;

(1) The head of the ○○ Tax Office filed a complaint with the ○○ Police Station on charges that ○○○○○○○ Head of the ○○○○○○○○○○ Head of the ○○ Tax Office received or issued a false tax invoice without a real transaction.

(2) On December 23, 2005, the ○○○ Provincial Police Agency rendered a decision on the absence of charges (Evidence insufficient) with respect to the case against the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the ○○○○○○ and Kim○○, a stock company, which was accused of by the head of ○○ Tax Office.

(Evidence Nos. 1 to 7, 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

D. Determination

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 a real transaction based on direct evidence or circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

With respect to whether the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice that is not accompanied by a real transaction, as recognized above, in light of the circumstances acknowledged as above, and the fact that ○○○○ and Kim○○ received a disposition of no suspicion by the prosecutor’s office (Evidence 3-2 of No. 3), the fact of transaction (Evidence 3-3 of the evidence), the fact of transaction confirmation (Evidence 3-3 of the evidence), and the purchase and sale place (Evidence 3-4 of No. 3-4 of the evidence), etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s assertion that only the entire amount of the instant tax invoice was kept in cash and that there was no withdrawal of the deposited money and payment of the deposited money was made, or that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful and the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, and the disposition of this case is revoked as per Disposition.