Gwangju High Court 2008Nu395 ( October 09, 2008)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual purchase of steel on this disposition by processing transaction and approval by bill is made;

As a result of the tax investigation, it is reasonable to see that the processing tax invoice issued without actual transactions is a processing tax invoice, in light of the fact that the sales office was identified as data and that the representative clearly expresses that the processing transaction is due to the processing transaction.

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

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, since the petition of appeal filed by the Plaintiff did not state any grounds for

[Miningju High Court 2008Nu395 ( October 09, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value added tax of 20,67,210 won on 204 against ○ Steel Co., Ltd. on November 1, 2006 and the notification of change in the income amount of 20,67,210 won shall be revoked, respectively.

The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant tax invoice is a processed tax invoice issued without real transaction.

As to this, the first instance court held that: (a) the Plaintiff issued a promissory note with ○ Steel as the addressee prior to the purchase of the goods in relation to the transaction of issuing the tax invoice of this case; (b) the transaction itself is an exceptional part of this transaction; and (c) the promissory note does not have any endorsement of ○ Steel; and (c) the Plaintiff requested ○○ Steel to purchase kyl-day at the “○○○○○ Department” upon receipt of the said bill; and (c) the Plaintiff transferred the said bill through ○○○○○ Branch, the actual manager of the said ○○ Group, but the transaction was not confirmed at around September 16, 204, the day of endorsement; (c) the fact that the transaction was between ○○ Steel and ○ Steel was not verified; (d) the result of the tax investigation was revealed as data; and (e) the representative clearly stated that the tax invoice of this case was due to the processing transaction during the investigation process; and (e) the instant notice of the tax invoice of this case and its additional disposition were justifiable.

Therefore, the reason why this court is used in this judgment is not consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding "the testimony on Kim○-○" at the court after the statement of evidence No. 7-1 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 9, 7-1 of the judgment of the court of first instance as evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Maju District Court 2007Guhap3435 (O. 24, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The ○○ Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Steel”) received two tax invoices from △ Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△ Steel Co., Ltd.”) conducting steel manufacturing business, and from △△ Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△ Steel”) conducting steel, steel pipes, temporary materials wholesale and retail business during the second period of 2004, and received two tax invoices, 149,985,100 won (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”), including the total value of supply, 204 value added tax and corporate tax for 204 business year and 204 business year.

B. However, as a result of the data survey on △ Steel, the head of ○○ Tax Office confirmed that the head of △ Steel received gold 1,50,155,000 won (including the instant tax invoice) and the tax invoice equivalent to KRW 1,419,161,00, which is 62.82% of the purchase amount of 62.82% of the total sales of △ Steel in 2004 and received without real transaction, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. On August 10, 2006, the Defendant notified the ○ Steel of the second half-yearly value-added tax amount in 2004 on August 10, 2006 through a pre-assessment review. On the same day, the Defendant disposed of KRW 164,953,800, added value-added tax to the amount equivalent to the tax invoice of this case as the bonus of ○○ Steel’s representative director Kim ○○, and issued a notice of change in income amount (hereinafter “instant notice of change in income amount”).

D. In addition, on November 1, 2006, the Defendant imposed an imposition of KRW 20,667,210 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2004 on ○ Steel (hereinafter “the supplementary details and dispositions of this case”) upon ○ Steel in accordance with the aforementioned pre-announcement of taxation.

E. On January 2, 2007, 2007, ○ Steel filed an objection against the Defendant on the ground that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice for a true transaction, but was dismissed, the request was filed with the National Tax Tribunal on April 16, 2007, but was also dismissed on June 15, 2007.

F. On June 12, 2007, ○ Steel was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure (this court 2007 Gohap4) and the Plaintiff was appointed as a custodian on the same day.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 10, Eul evidence 1 and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the notice of change in the income amount of this case, additional detailed statement, and disposition on the premise that it is a processing tax invoice are unlawful since the Plaintiff actually purchased steel amounting to KRW 63,279,170 on October 13, 2004 from △ Steel and issued a promissory note amounting to KRW 145,00,000 at face value to △ Steel around September 16, 2004, and the Plaintiff issued and delivered the promissory note amounting to KRW 63,279,170 on October 13, 2004 and the tax invoice of this case.

B. Determination

The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant tax invoice is a processed tax invoice issued without real transaction.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap's Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and Eul's Nos. 2, 3, and 6 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff issued a promissory note with △ Steel as the receiver of △△ Steel prior to the purchase of the goods in connection with the transaction of issuing the tax invoice of this case. However, such a transaction itself is not only an example, but also there is no endorsement from △ Steel. ② The plaintiff requested △ Steel to purchase a kncoe at ○○○ team upon receipt of the bill, and transferred the bill through this ○○○○, the actual manager of the ○○○ Group. However, it is not confirmed that there was a transaction between ○○ Group and △△ Steel on September 16, 2004, which is the date of endorsement, and it is also inconsistent with the tax invoice of this case. ③ The representative's preparation of the tax invoice of this case and the fact that the transaction of this case was not approved during the investigation process.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the notice of change in the income amount of this case and its detailed addition and disposition on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is due to the processing transaction are lawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.