The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual purchase of this disposition by a processing purchase was made

The mere fact that it is difficult to regard the purchaser as material, and it is difficult for the purchaser to regard the gold industry as material, that it is difficult for the purchaser to regard the transfer of the purchase price as a disguised remittance, and that the transaction partner accusationed as material when comprehensively considering the scale of transaction, etc. is insufficient to regard the purchaser as material and false tax invoice.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 11,681,300 against the Plaintiff on November 16, 2006 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a business operator operating a gold industry with the trade name of "○○○○○-dong 000-0 in Busan Geum-gu, 000," and on July 27, 2001, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case") with the total amount of KRW 5,000 per 11,321,321,212 per 1g, supply price of KRW 56,60,06,060, and the total amount of KRW 62,26,666,666, and the total amount of KRW 62,266,66,00 from the output tax amount to the input tax amount, deducted the value-added tax amount under the tax invoice of this case as the input tax amount and reported and paid the value-added tax for 201.

B. On November 16, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the taxation data that it issued a tax invoice without real transaction, and deemed the instant tax invoice as a different tax invoice from the fact that it was issued without real transaction and deducted the relevant input tax amount. On November 16, 2006, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax amount of KRW 11,681,300 (including additional tax) for the second term portion of value-added tax for 2001 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

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

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the plaintiff actually purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the tax invoice of this case from ○○ juice and deposited all of its price into the account of ○○ juice, it was unlawful for the defendant's disposition of this case that concluded that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without a real transaction just because it was an enterprise accused of suspect on data without undergoing a specific investigation or confirmation with the plaintiff.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice prepared without real transaction.

(B) Even if a domestic or real transaction occurred, the actual place of business of 00 juice is 'Seoul Jongno-gu ○○○○○○○○○3, Seoul's place of business is '65-14', and the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice different from the fact, and the input tax amount is not subject to the deduction of value-added tax.

(C) Therefore, the instant disposition, which did not deduct the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice, is lawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether a false tax invoice without real transaction is a false tax invoice

The burden of proving whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act, or the value of supply, which is a tax base, is, in principle, at the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992): Provided, that only where the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, the other party can only be able to prove the circumstances that the pertinent facts in question cannot be subject to the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13,

(5) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., and by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., and exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., and by exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to ○○○○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to ○○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., nor by exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to ○○○○ Tax Invoice’s sales revenue, etc., as alleged in the ground of appeal.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that the supplier’s address is impossible to deduct the input tax due to false representation

Article 16(1)1 through 4 and Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the necessary entry items in the tax invoice issued by the taxpayer, namely, the registration number, name or title, the registration number, value-added tax number, and value-added tax amount of the supplier, and all or part of the date of preparation, are differently entered from the facts. The address of the supplier who falsely entered in the tax invoice of this case is merely an arbitrary entry item that does not constitute the necessary entry items in the above tax invoice, and thus, even if such false entry is entered, the tax invoice of this case does not constitute an input tax invoice that cannot be deducted from the input tax amount. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.