Whether the disposition of this case on the premise that a tax invoice was received without a real transaction is unlawful

The instant tax invoice was proved to be a false tax invoice issued without a real transaction, and there was no evidence to prove otherwise that there was a real transaction corresponding to the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a real transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Guhap3028 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

○○

○ Head of tax office

November 9, 2016

December 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall revoke the imposition of value-added tax on the plaintiff on January 9, 2015 from the second term of 2010 to the first term of 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 10, 2005, the Plaintiff engaged in liquor and food miscellaneous retail business under the trade name of ○○○○-gu 156-3 103, ○○○○-si 156-3103 (○○ store) (hereinafter “instant business”).

B. The Plaintiff received tax invoices of KRW 41,021,00 in the taxable period of the second taxable year of the value-added tax in 2010 from BB (hereinafter “B”), 45,950,000 in the taxable period of the second taxable year of the value-added tax in 201, 24,039,00 in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2011, and 51,606,000 in the first taxable period of the second taxable year of the value-added tax in 2012, and filed a return of the input tax amount in the pertinent taxable period after deducting the amount of the input tax from the output tax amount during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2012.

C. As a result of a tracking investigation of the distribution process of alcoholic beverages against BB, the Director of the Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the taxation data that the instant tax invoice was prepared without real transaction. Accordingly, on January 9, 2015, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and correction of KRW 7,883,570 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2010, KRW 8,581,340 for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2011, KRW 4,35,290 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 201, KRW 9,925,640 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2012, and KRW 9,846,450 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on September 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff actually purchased alcoholic beverages equivalent to the instant tax invoice from BB and paid the price thereof, the instant tax invoice is a normal transaction. The instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without a real transaction is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) At the time of the tax investigation into BB by the ○○○○ Tax Office, which is the real operator of BB, stated that BB issued the former processing tax invoice to provide an unlicensed intermediary wholesaler with a large quantity of alcoholic beverages to increase the sales of BB, and in order to meet the pertinent amount of data. Specifically, BB returned a tax invoice of KRW 4,117,054,989 in total to 52 businesses, including the instant business place operated by the Plaintiff without real transactions from July 2010 to June 2013, 200, 206, 300,000,000,000 KRW 41,00,005,000 in cash, 205, 205, 2016, 2015, 205, 206, 2016, 306, 205, 2016, 206, 2015, 2010.

2) The Plaintiff received a tax invoice for liquor price issued by BB from October 2010, and the ratio of the input tax amount to the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice is among the total input tax amount of the Plaintiff in the relevant taxable period.

Around October 2013, 2013, when ○○ Tax Office’s tax investigation on BB took place, the Plaintiff responded to the following: (a) around November 22, 2013, the Plaintiff suspended the transaction with Party A B; and (b) around November 22, 2013, ○○○ Tax Office’s tax official, who started the business trip investigation on the instant business site, asked ○○○○○ (○○○)’s tax official, from the business trip investigation on the instant business site, to ask ○○ (i.e., the grounds for suspending transaction with B

3) During the above period of transaction with BB, the Plaintiff’s liquor purchase price to be paid to the Plaintiff was 55 times in total, but 413m away from the office of BB to the account under the Plaintiff’s name, and was paid in cash at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s share of shares issued on December 18, 2012, with a total of 3 million won and less than 15,125,70 won and more than 295,120 won. The settlement period was set at 15,125,70 won, and most of them were not set but more than 2:00 p.m. On the other hand, six copies of the Plaintiff’s liquor purchase card linked to the above account were issued at ○○○○○○○○○’s share holder’s total share of shares, except 1.00 column.

4) Meanwhile, in transactions with companies other than BB, the Plaintiff deposited the amount to be settled by means of Internet banking or phone banking, as much as the amount to be settled immediately before the payment by the card, and immediately made the payment by the card purchase card using the card device carried by the employees in charge of delivery of the pertinent company. However, it is difficult to say that BB took the method of directly depositing the amount at the corresponding company's nearby bank's nearby bank and making the payment by means of the card device in the pertinent company's office.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence B Nos. 1-1, 2, Eul Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, Eul Nos. 8-1 and 8-2, the result of the order to submit financial transaction information to ○○ Bank, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In the event that a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, which is proved to a considerable extent by the tax authority as to whether it is an actual cost, and the purpose of the expenses alleged by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment thereof have been proved to a considerable extent, the taxpayer needs to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20,

2) The facts acknowledged in the instant case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff was time limit for processing without actual transactions; (b) the Plaintiff specifically stated that “B returned the same amount to the Plaintiff in cash again from the transaction partner that received the processing tax invoice to the transaction partner that received the payment of alcoholic beverages; (c) the Plaintiff’s transaction with BB, which accounts for 30 to 60% of the total input tax amount, was interrupted by the time of commencement of the tax investigation into BB; and (c) the Plaintiff was not clearly informed of the reasons; (d) the Plaintiff was unable to submit objective data on the sales of alcoholic beverages, etc. issued by the Plaintiff (200 to 560 SP) in Korea; and (d) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to directly visit the Plaintiff’s bank account to prove that the payment of alcoholic beverages was made by the Plaintiff to BB, and (e) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to directly visit the Plaintiff’s bank account to the extent that the payment was made by the Plaintiff to the extent that it was made by means of direct settlement.

Meanwhile, it is difficult to believe that each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 11 through 13, which seems consistent with the plaintiff's argument that there was a real transaction corresponding to the tax invoice of this case, is insufficient to recognize it only by the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 14 through 18, and 20-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.