Whether the issue of whether the party actually traded and received the tax invoice or tax invoice

Considering that the fact that a tax invoice was prepared and issued without a real transaction is confirmed as the last day, etc., and that the data processor is accused and criminalized, and no account book related to the real transaction is submitted, it is insufficient to recognize it as a real transaction. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 7,752,90 of value-added tax for the first term of 2005 against the Plaintiff on June 8, 2007 and KRW 13,076,350 of corporate tax for the business year of 2005.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the production, transportation, and sales of aggregate, received four copies of the tax invoices (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) equivalent to the total amount of KRW 60,794,800 in the name of the ○○ Industry Development Co., Ltd. (i.e., the value of supply of KRW 55,268,000 + tax amount of KRW 5,526,80) as follows, while bringing in the original stone with the vehicle of the ○○ Industry Development Co., Ltd. and paying the price thereof.

① A tax invoice of KRW 8,349,00 on March 31, 2005 (i.e., value of KRW 7,590,000 + tax amount of KRW 759,000)

② A tax invoice of KRW 14,490,000 on April 29, 2005 (=14,490,000 + 1,449,000)

③ A tax invoice of KRW 21,194,80 on May 31, 2005 (i.e., KRW 19,268,00 + tax amount of KRW 1,926,800) one sheet;

④ A tax invoice of KRW 15,312,00 on June 30, 2005 (i.e., value of KRW 13,920,000 + one sheet of tax invoice of KRW 1,392,00)

B. Upon filing a preliminary return of value-added tax for the first time on April 23, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a final return of value-added tax for the Defendant on March 31, 2005, 759,000 won equivalent to KRW 7,590,000 based on the supply price for the first time value on March 31, 2005, and upon filing a final return of value-added tax for the first time on July 25, 2005 on July 25, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a final return of value-added tax for the first time on July 25, 2005 (=14,490,000 + KRW 19,268,000 + KRW 13,920,000 + KRW 13,920,000) with the amount of tax equivalent to KRW 767,805,705,000 by deducting the said amount of tax as each input tax return for the Defendant on March 31.

C. The Defendant received from the head of ○○ Tax Office a notice of taxation data that the instant tax invoice was issued without real transactions, and deducted input tax amounting to KRW 55,268,00,000, and imposed KRW 55,268,000 on the Plaintiff on June 8, 2007, including KRW 7,752,990, and corporate tax of KRW 13,076,350 for the business year 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 13, Eul evidence 5 and 6-1 through 3, Eul evidence 7-1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff traded normally from ○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. as stated in the tax invoice of this case, such as purchase of tin as stated in the tax invoice of this case and payment of the price in full, the Defendant, without any objective data, deemed the instant tax invoice as a processing tax invoice and rendered the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

(i)Recognitions

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the purport of Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 3-1 to 7, Eul evidence 8-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(A) On October 15, 2002, while establishing and operating ○○○○dong Co., Ltd., Ltd., on June 17, 2004, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was established and operated as a representative for the purpose of mid-term leasing and selling, etc., and around that time, an individual company called ○○ Industry Development was also established under the name of Kim○○○○○○. The ○○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. was operated with dump trucks trucks and 11 vehicles under the name of the company, and was shut down ex officio on April 30, 2005.

(B) In around 2005, the Plaintiff traded by negotiating with Kim○, an employee of ○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. to bring in the original seat of another construction site with a vehicle of an industrial development Co., Ltd.

(C) On May 16, 2006, ○○○ was present at the investigation division of ○○ Tax Affairs and stated in relation to the tax invoice issued in the name of ○ Industry Development Co., Ltd. during the first taxable period of 2004 and 2005.

① The largest ○○ has made on-the-spot transactions such as lease of dump trucks and dump trucks. During that process, it was also possible to issue a processing tax invoice to a customer who requests for a dump truck to be cut lower than the actual tax invoice.

② A normal transaction was made using a bank only when the bank did not use a passbook and when the tax invoice is no longer than the actual one, and was made to withdraw the deposit of the account and return it to cash or deposit it into a bank account opened by the customer.

③ Of the sales tax invoices issued under the name of ○ Industry Development Co., Ltd., 204, 26 business partners including ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., 2005, and 8 business partners including ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○○ Development Co., Ltd., ○○ Development Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○

(D) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff submitted bank transaction details, etc. related to the instant tax invoice upon the request of the head of ○○ Tax Office to submit actual transaction evidentiary data to the said customer. On May 4, 2005, the details include KRW 2 million deposited into the account of ○○○ on June 24, 2005 and KRW 3 million deposited into the account of ○○○○ on June 24, 2005.

(e)The director of the ○○ Tax Office determined whether the instant tax invoice was a processed transaction based on the supporting documents submitted by the customers of the ○○ Industrial Development Company and the ○○○○’s statement, and determined that the Plaintiff was a tax invoice issued without a real transaction on the ground that there was no vindication as to the actual transaction place.

(f) On June 2, 2006, the chief of the ○○ Tax Office accused the police station on suspicion that he issued and issued a false tax invoice, including the instant tax invoice, to the persons related to the maximum ○○ and the maximum ○○○○○○○, etc., who were the residents of the instant ○○○○○○○○○, on charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, prior to the filing of the charge.

(2) Determination

Generally, in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5604, Nov. 15, 2007).

As to this case, it seems that ○○○, as in the above recognition, would have habitually issued a false tax invoice. The Plaintiff, a business operator, who is obligated to enter all facts related to the tax payable in the account book and keep the account books for five years from the date of the final tax return of value-added tax, is unable to submit any account books related to the transaction on the tax invoice of this case; ○○, and ○○ and ○○○ appears to have been an event due to the issuance, etc. of the tax invoice of this case; in light of the fact that ○○ and ○○ appears to have been an event, the instant tax invoice of this case appears to have been prepared and issued by ○○ Industrial Development Company without actual transaction to the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(3) Therefore, since the Defendant’s tax invoice was issued without a real transaction, and the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is lawful, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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