No transaction shall be deemed a processing transaction solely on the ground that the sales amount was immediately withdrawn.

If the customer is a business operator who issued part of the processing tax invoice, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff’s purchase tax invoice is a processing tax invoice that does not have any real trade just because it was traded with the business partner and the sales price was withdrawn

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2001 against the Plaintiff on August 12, 2005 and the imposition of KRW 10,161,190 on corporate tax for the business year of 2001 shall be revoked in entirety.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 25, 1998, the Plaintiff, a business operator operating a wholesale business on computers and their parts, etc., received three copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 35 million (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from ○○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○”) who was accused of so-called data in the second taxable period of 2001, as shown in the following table, and deducted the said supply value from the input tax amount for the second taxable period of 2001, after deducting the said supply value from the input tax amount for the second taxable year of 2001. The Plaintiff reported each corporate tax for the second taxable year of 2001 and for the business year of 201.

No.

Date of issue

Type of goods

Value of supply (excluding value-added tax)

1

September 26, 2001

INS3120DES, etc.

16 million won;

2

October 15, 2001

D-INS3130DES, etc.

8 million won;

3

November 29, 2001

D-INS3130DES, etc.

10 million won

Total

35 million won;

B. On August 12, 2005, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued due to a processing transaction without real transactions, and thus, deducted the supply value under the said tax invoice from the input tax amount, and excluded the amount of value added tax from the corporate tax base, and imposed and notified each of the instant dispositions on the Plaintiff on August 12, 2001, KRW 6,186,250 for the second term portion of value added tax, and corporate tax of KRW 10,161,190 for the business year 201 (hereinafter “each disposition”).

2. Whether each disposition of the instant case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the tax invoice of this case was issued due to actual transaction, not a processing transaction, it is unlawful to take each of the dispositions of this case on different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(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 as

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of the corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided for in this Act.

(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated or spent in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition shall be imposed on the tax authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirement have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, the other party cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement unless it proves that the pertinent facts in question were not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 200

The non-party company's total sales amount of the second taxable period of 200 won was approximately 3,892,00,000 won, and the sales amount issued by false tax invoices without real transactions for the above period of time was 1,030,825,000 won. However, it cannot be concluded that the non-party company issued a false sales tax invoice with respect to some of the total sales amount without real transactions. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the non-party company issued a false sales tax invoice without real transactions merely because the non-party company issued a false sales invoice with respect to the above sales amount without real transactions. Therefore, the defendant who bears the burden of proof of taxation requirement must prove that the tax invoice of this case was issued without real transactions, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above fact. The non-party company's assertion that the above amount of supply value under the tax invoice of this case was immediately withdrawn from the plaintiff company on the date of receiving the money from the plaintiff company without real transactions. However, the non-party company's funds transfer amount was no more than the above funds transfer amount to the plaintiff company's account.

Rather, on October 25, 2001, the Plaintiff paid one promissory note of KRW 3,410,000, the face value of which was paid by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, as the price for goods, to the non-party company as the price for the goods indicated in the instant tax invoice on November 21, 2001. On November 21, 2001, the remaining amount of KRW 35,090,000 (including value-added tax) for the goods on the 30th of the same month is recognized to have been deposited into the passbook of the non-party company’s ○○○○○ Bank (Account number: ○○-○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○).

3. Conclusion

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