Cho High Court Decision 2010Du4068 ( October 17, 2011)

It is reasonable to view that a transaction is a processed transaction without a real transaction in light of the fact that there is no objective data supporting the genuine purchase transaction.

The fact that the non-party company, which was prosecuted for committing a crime related to the preparation of the list of total tax invoices and sentenced to a conviction, issues a false tax invoice Chapter 4 to the plaintiff in a criminal case, is recognized by the representative of the non-party company. The purchase price of this case is too abnormal or abnormal form of funds for the purchase price between the plaintiff and the non-party company, and the purchase of steel and concrete at the same time in light of the characteristics of the construction work is ordinarily intended to purchase concrete at the same time, but it does not appear at all at the same time.

2011Revocation of disposition imposing value-added tax, etc.

XX Integrated Construction Corporation

Head of Guro Tax Office

October 19, 2011

November 2, 2011

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 29,527,670 on September 1, 2010 for the first term portion of 2007 against the Plaintiff, corporate tax of 25,610,480 for the business year of 2007, and KRW 16,042,070 for the business year of 208 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that runs a construction business, received the purchase tax invoice by purchasing steel equivalent to 152,81,880 won of supply price from XX industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) during the taxable period of the value added tax in January 2007, the Plaintiff paid the value added tax calculated by deducting it as the input tax amount at the time of the return of the value-added tax for the first period of January 2007 and paid the corporate tax calculated by including the above purchase price in the purchase price at the purchase price at the tax return for the business year 2007 and 2008.

B. However, on or around November 2007, the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office explained that the non-party company issued a false tax invoice without any real transaction and notified the defendant of the taxation data. The defendant confirmed that the purchase transaction in this case was a processing transaction and denied the input tax deduction and the purchase cost, and notified the plaintiff of the correction of the corporate tax amount of KRW 25,610,480 for the year of the business year of the year of the year of the business year of the year of the year of the year of the 2007, and the defendant confirmed that the purchase transaction in this case was a processing transaction based on the above taxation data, and denied the input tax deduction and the purchase cost (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Defendant on October 14, 2010, but the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal on November 4, 2010. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 6, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the application on February 17, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was supplied with the actual sales through the instant purchase transaction, received the tax invoice normally from the Nonparty Company, and paid the purchase price by transferring it to the corporateation, etc., the instant purchase transaction should be deemed to be a real transaction. However, the Defendant concluded that the instant purchase transaction was a processing transaction on the sole basis of the account transaction details, etc., and issued the instant disposition.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The process of issuing a false statement of purchase and sale of the non-party company

A) On November 10, 2005, the non-party company was established by thisA, a representative of the non-party company, and was voluntarily closed on August 31, 2007. The non-party company was found to have received false purchase tax invoices during the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2006, and was selected as a tax investigation subject.

B) From November 7, 2007 to December 21, 2007, the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the non-party company. The non-party company revealed that the sales and purchase tax invoices attached at the time of the return of the value-added tax in 2006 and 1, 2007 were most false tax invoices for which no real transactions are conducted, and the non-party company and its representative were accused of the criminal charges under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. The non-party company and the non-party company were indicted as the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by Seoul Southern District Court 2008 High Court 2000,000 won for the non-party company on December 23, 2008, and the non-party company was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1.0 million won for the year 1 year 200, respectively, and this was finalized on December 31, 2008.

C) Meanwhile, after issuing or receiving a false tax invoice in the above criminal case, thisA confirmed all the facts constituting the crime that the list of the total tax invoices by buyer and by seller was prepared and submitted in a false manner at the time of the return of value-added tax for February 2, 2006 and January 2007. Of the facts constituting the crime, the non-party company included a false tax invoice (excluding value-added tax) equivalent to KRW 152,81,880 against the Plaintiff.

2) Data related to the purchase and transaction of this case

A) In order to secure the steel necessary for the construction of the Pyeongtaek Scam Scam apartment and the stud Scam Scam construction in progress, the Plaintiff, through the instant purchase transaction, submitted a transaction statement in which the Plaintiff purchased the steel from the non-party company. The specific details are as follows.

B) Meanwhile, according to the account transaction details of the Plaintiff corporation, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff transferred the amount equivalent to the purchase price to the Nonparty company by means of a transfer by relay transfer while conducting the instant purchase transaction, but it is confirmed that another similar amount is deposited into the Plaintiff corporation account before and after the date of payment of the purchase price (the deposit was made in full in cash). The specific details are as follows.

C) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff accounts for the deposit or provisional collection of KRW 54,00,000, out of KRW 141,300,000 deposited into the Plaintiff’s account as above ( KRW 25,000,000 on June 1, 2007, KRW 23, 2007, KRW 25,000 on July 23, 2007, KRW 4,000,000 on July 25, 2007) by the representative director.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

However, considering the following circumstances, the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings acknowledged as above, i.e., the non-party company and its representative, the other party to the purchase transaction of this case, issued or received a false tax invoice, 2006 and 1, 2007, which were convicted of having been convicted of having been issued and declared guilty. This is all acknowledged in the above criminal case that the non-party company purchased 152,81,80 won (excluding value-added tax) from the non-party company to the non-party company, and that the non-party company purchased 4 funds from the non-party company to the non-party company by means of bank account transfer for 0 years since it was no more than 0 days before the payment of the purchase funds to the non-party company. However, according to the account transaction of the plaintiff company, it is difficult to view that the non-party company's funds were transferred to the non-party company by means of bank transfer for 0 years or 200 days before the payment of the purchase funds to the non-party company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.