The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual purchase of construction materials for this disposition has been made through processing transactions.

It is reasonable to view the transaction as an actual transaction in view of the fact that there is no evidence that the instant tax invoice was not included in the criminal facts of conviction, and that there was no evidence to deem that the account was deposited in order to pretend to be the actual transaction.

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

1. On April 1, 2008, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 122,042,030 on global income tax for the year 2002, KRW 18,316,750 on global income tax for the year 202, KRW 26,710,830 on global income tax for the year 202, KRW 11,843970 on global income tax for the year 2003, KRW 5,200,680 on global income tax for the year 203.

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 has been engaged in the wholesale business under the trade name, i.e., “○○ Construction Property Business” with 41-○○-101 in the light of the location of the business place.

B. The Plaintiff purchased construction materials, etc. from ○ Environment Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Environment Industry”) during the taxable period of value-added tax from January 2002 to February 2003 and received purchase tax invoices as listed below from ○ Environment Industry, and deducted the input tax amount equivalent to the supply value of each of the above tax invoices from the output tax amount, and returned and paid the value-added tax and comprehensive income tax for the pertinent taxable period by appropriating each of the supply value as necessary expenses.

C. Around December 2003, the head of the regional tax office conducted a tax investigation on the transaction from January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 of the ○ Environmental Industry. As a result, the ○○ Environmental Industry received purchase tax invoices of KRW 1,879,490,000 in total from five companies including ○○ Unemployment for the above period without real transactions, and then issued a tax invoice of KRW 2,043,856,00 in total without real transactions to 24 companies including the Plaintiff, and notified the head of the competent tax office of the results.

D. According to the notice of taxation data by the director of the regional tax office as above, each tax invoice listed in the table 1 to 3 of the above sub-paragraph (b) above (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”) shall be deemed to be a processed tax invoice issued without real transaction. The Defendant issued each of the tax invoices of this case, and imposed the Plaintiff the global income tax of 122,042,030,030, global income tax of 2002, global income tax of 18,316,750, value-added tax of 202, value-added tax of 202, value-added tax of 26,710,830, global income tax of 203, global income tax of 11,843,970, value-added tax of 5,200,680, and value-added tax of 203 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 1-1 through 9, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4, 5-1 through 10, Eul evidence 1-1-7, Eul evidence 1-1 through 12-11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff actually purchased construction materials, etc. from the ○○ Environmental Industry and paid the price in cash, etc., the Defendant deemed the transaction of each of the instant tax invoices as a transaction of processing without real transaction, and thus, each of the instant dispositions was unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In light of the fact that each of the tax invoices of this case was confirmed as a processing tax invoice issued without real transaction, and that the details of the withdrawal of money from the Plaintiff’s passbook are no more than five million won on the date on which the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid the price to the ○○ Environment Industry and its representative director, and that the account was opened on July 2, 2002 and used only until January 2, 2003. In light of the details of the transaction, most of the deposit transactions during the above period were deposited by the Plaintiff, and most of the deposit transactions were deposited on the date of deposit. In light of the fact that most of the deposit transactions were deposited on the date of deposit, it is difficult to view the details of the above financial transaction as a means to disguise the real transaction using the details of the financial transaction, and otherwise, the Plaintiff did not prove that the transaction of each of the tax invoices of this case was a real transaction. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings or videos as described in the evidence of No. 3, evidence of No. 4-1 through 11, evidence of No. 5-1 through 4, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7-1, 2, evidence No. 8-1 through 6, evidence No. 23-1, 2, and evidence No. 28-1 through 3, respectively:

(1) The Plaintiff, who is a state-owned property, obtained permission for use of and benefit from state-owned property to 1,121 square meters among 22,983 square meters in ○○-dong ○○-dong, ○○-gu, ○○○-si, ○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, ○○○-si, and used construction materials as an open storage yard, etc.

(2) Around 2002 and 2003, the Plaintiff sold construction materials to ○ Construction Co., Ltd. and received cash or promissory note, etc. The Plaintiff issued a promissory note received to ○○ Environmental Industry as above or deposited cash in the account of ○○○ or ○○ Environmental Industry, the representative director of the ○○ Environmental Industry, as shown below. The account in the name of ○○○ Account deposited by the Plaintiff was opened around July 2002 and was actually used until January 2, 2003. In light of the details of the transaction, 9 of the total deposit transactions was deposited by the Plaintiff during the said period, and 14 of the deposit transactions was deposited by the Plaintiff, and the same amount was deposited on the day of deposit by the Plaintiff.

(3) During the value-added tax period from January 2002 to January 2003, the head of the regional tax office filed an accusation against 24 companies, including the Plaintiff, for the reasons that the ○ Environmental Industry issued a tax invoice of KRW 2,043,856,00 in total without real transactions (including three tax invoices in February 2002, including the sum of the supply values of KRW 82,00,000,000 in total, KRW 4,000 in each of the tax invoices in this case) and 82,000,000 in total, KRW 3,04,000 in total,00,000 in total, KRW 3,00 in total,00 in 20,000 in each of the tax invoices in this case, on the grounds that the ○ Environmental Industry and ○○○ was sentenced to imprisonment for one year in the criminal case in question. The portion of the tax invoice in this case was not included in each of the original tax invoices.

C. Determination

Unless there are special circumstances as to the substantive and procedural illegality of taxation disposition, the tax authority is responsible to prove the existence of the taxation requirements and the legality of the procedure. It is difficult to conclude that the transaction of each of the tax invoices of this case is not the actual transaction but the processing transaction. Rather, in the above recognition facts, the head of the regional tax office filed a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the ○ Environment Industry and the ○○ Industries were issued a processed tax invoice including a part of each of the tax invoices of this case. However, each of the tax invoices of this case is not included in the conviction crime, and the Plaintiff appears to have paid the transaction price of each of the tax invoices of this case to the ○○ Environment Industry and the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the ○○dong-dong branch of Sungnam-si, and that the Plaintiff deposited money to the ○○ Industries and the ○○○ in the real transaction of each of the tax invoices of this case. Thus, each of the tax invoices of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.