Supreme Court-2016-Du-5040 ( December 27, 2016)

Seocho 2013west 4430 (Law No. 11, 2014)

Even if a legal entity accounts normally between corporations, etc., the sales of goods constitutes a false tax invoice if the purpose is to eliminate the sales of the goods.

Even if ordinary accounting, receipt of payments, return of value-added tax, and payment are performed while trading between corporations which have a legal entity, if the transaction was conducted on an external basis only for the purpose of uneasting the sales amount of the goods, it constitutes a false tax invoice.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

2017Nu35013 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○ Chemical Industry Corporation

○ Head of tax office

July 5, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after the appeal.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is as follows. The reasoning for this case is that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or added as set forth in Paragraph 2 below, and except for the addition of Paragraph 3 below to the judgment of the plaintiff on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added in this Court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 4

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ The second part of the 9th chapter "the plaintiff and the non-party" are "the ○ Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (the ○○ Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. was merged with ○○ Mining Industry Co., Ltd. on December 00, 2013 and dissolved; hereinafter referred to as ○○ Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. prior to the merger means ○○ Chemical Co., Ltd.)".

The second 10th '○ Mining' (hereinafter referred to as '○ Mining') is regarded as '(hereinafter referred to as '○○ Mining' when meaning '○○ Mining Co., Ltd. prior to the merger').

○ The 2nd, 12th, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th, each "Plaintiff" in the table below 1, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th, shall be read as "○○ chemical" respectively.

○ Each “Plaintiff” of the 4th, 6th, 6, 11, 17, 7th, 7th, 8th, 12, 13, 19, and 20th, shall be read as “○m chemical” respectively.

○ 6.20 Part VI “B” is added to “(the representative director of the plaintiff)” next.

The representative of the ○○ Industrial Complex in Part 7 of the 4th page "the fact that ○○ Industrial Complex is thisA" is "the fact that ○○ Industrial Complex is operated by the representative of the private business chain operated by this A."

“The fact of remittance” in Part 21 of the 8th page of “the fact of remittance” is added to “the fact that the actual location of ○○ Mining, Korea ○○, ○○○ Industrial, and ○○○○ Building is the same as the ○○○○○○○, Seoul, and the actual location of ○○○○○○○○, and the fact that each of its officers or employees is shared by business fields, such as business, funds, production, shipment, material management, personnel labor, and other business fields, without distinguishing the business allocation of each of its officers or employees from each other.”

○ 5th page “from 2009”, “from 2004,” and “after 2004,” following:

The term "209" is added to the 2009 poor construction competition.

○ “○ Mining Division” in Part 7 of Part 9 is deleted.

○ From the 8th page of the 9th page to the 9th page “Recognized” of the 9th page is as follows:

“Recognizing this, the Plaintiff asserts that thisCC had been transferred to ○ Industrial Enterprise Co., Ltd., in order to respond to the Trade Union, and that the Plaintiff continued to perform the previous business. In light of this, ○ Mining, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○ Industrial Company, and ○○ Chemical, under the overall supervision of thisAA, performed the business without a separate affiliation between the related parties, and it is difficult to recognize the independent and specific role of ○○○ in Korea during the first transaction period of this case.”

○ There is no fact that ○○ Mining or the Korea ○○○ has produced and sold tins for reclamation from the beginning of the 2000s to the end of the 2012, and there is no specific production plan.

(c) add ";"

○ In Part 9, the term “time and” shall be added to the following:

○ From 19th page “Korea ○○○○” to 21st page “the fact” is deleted.

The repayment and joint and several sureties of the 10th page 3 of the 10th page shall be applied to the redemption, etc.

○ 10 Part 4 of the 10th page “I have been able to obtain the economic benefit of maintaining”

It is called that there was an economic incentive.

Pursuant to Section 10 of Section 9 of the title "the upper part", the following is added to "the benefit of the new AA, where the Republic of Korea ○○, as the above, primarily engaged in the operation of the ○○ Mining Business, is paid as gross sales profit."

3. Additional judgment;

The Plaintiff asserts to the following purport. ○○ Mining, Korea ○○○○, and ○○ Chemical are corporations with respective entities, and the details of the purchase and sale were treated normally, and the details of the tax invoice were received and the value-added tax was reported and paid, and the transaction amount was also received. The Korea ○○○○○ was a normal transaction that purchased tin conference from ○○ Mining, supplied it to ○○ Chemical. During that process, ○○○○ was created by fulfilling the dignity of tin conference through the selection and mixture of tin conference, and the real movement was also made, and the legal and economic effects of the transaction was actually attributed to the transaction party. Moreover, the transaction related to the ○○ Trading was also recognized as a normal transaction by the Tax Tribunal, the prosecution, and the court. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful and unjust.

Considering the evidence and facts found in the judgment of the first instance court cited by this court, it is reasonable to view that the first transaction of this case was made between ○○ Mining, Korea ○○○, ○○ Industries, and ○○ Chemical having a special relation, and that the Korea ○○○○ was engaged in the middle of the first transaction between ○ Mining and ○○ Chemical only for the purpose of planting the sales of the goods by ○○○○○○○, a substantial master of these companies, in an external manner. Even if evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the first instance court and the evidence additionally submitted by this court are collected, it is difficult to reverse the said recognition, and merely because the transaction related to the first transaction of this case was recognized as a normal transaction at the Tax Tribunal, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the court, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the first transaction of this case was a normal transaction.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.