The legitimacy of the assertion that the gold bullion was traded on the disposition by a processing transaction

It is reasonable to view that the real transaction is the false tax invoice which leads to the actual transaction rather than the actual purchase of juice and the transfer of the purchase price. Unlike this, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there exists a real transaction is difficult to believe as it is.

Article 155 of the Enforcement Decree

Article 89 of the Income Tax Act

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 2,283,130 on October 15, 2006 against the Plaintiff of KRW 1,961,490 on the second quarter of 2001, KRW 7,548,390 on the first quarter of 2002, KRW 2,283,130 on the second quarter of 202 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff engaged in sales business of precious metals, etc. from February 26, 2001 to around September 5, 2006, and changed its category of business into cosmetics retail business around 2006. The Plaintiff changed its trade name to juice ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “juice ○○○”) in the name of juice ○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”).

B. During the second taxable period from 2001 to 2002, the Plaintiff received five tax invoices equivalent to 60,163,180 won (hereinafter “tax invoices”) in total of the supply values as follows, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount on the supply value.

Table Omission of the Table

C. As to this, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant tax invoice was not consistent with the actual transaction and deducted the relevant input tax amount; (b) on October 15, 2006, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,961,490, value-added tax for the second term of 2001, including each additional tax; (c) value-added tax for the first term of 2002, KRW 7,548,390, and value-added tax for the second term of 202, KRW 283,130, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Based on Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5 evidence 1 to 14-1 to 13, Gap evidence 17-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1-2 and 3, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 9-1 to 6, Eul evidence 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff notified ○○ △△△ by itself of the calls of its purchase at present, and then transferred the price at present to the Busan ○○○○○○○ Branch of the National Agricultural Cooperative, which is an precious metal specialized in the precious metal located in Busan ○○○○○○○○○ (representative) by transfer of a bank account-free passbook in the bank account of the ○○○○○○○ branch, and then has been delivered from ○○○○○○○○○, which is currently ordered through ○○○○○○, which is currently being delivered to ○○○○○○○, and has been actually purchased at present by means of delivery of the price from ○○○○○○, and has been deposited in full. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff received

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The details of the Plaintiff’s return of value-added tax from the first to the second period from 2001 are as follows.

Table Omission of the Table

(2) The details of the Plaintiff’s receipt of the purchase tax invoice pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Return from 1st to 2nd 2003 are as follows.

Table Omission of the Table

(3) A company established by ○○○○○ Head of a tax office as KRW 50 million in capital, which purchased a total of KRW 214,036,000 from ○○○○○○○○ Head of a tax office to 21 companies, etc., and reported that ○○○○○○○○○ Head of a tax office had sold its total of KRW 214,036,00,000 from 1st of 203, and that ○○○○ Head of a tax office had purchased a tax invoice of KRW 200,000 in total, and ○○○○○○○ Head of a tax office stated that ○○○○○○ Head of a tax office’s purchase of 1st of 203,000 in total, 30,000,000 in total, and 20,000 in total, 30,0000 in total,00 from 20,000.

The net income of the above company from 2001 to 2003 was only KRW 160 million.

(4) The Plaintiff’s name deposited KRW 13,759,00 on March 15, 2002 at the Busan ○○dong Branch, KRW 14,293,00 on April 30, 200, KRW 14,212,00 on May 31, 2002, KRW 13,412,00 on the deposit account of the bank account of the ○○○○○○○○○○○ through the deposit without passbook, and the Plaintiff received the corresponding tax invoice (However, the deposit details related to the tax invoice No. 1 on the instant tax invoice do not appear on the record).

(5) As above, at the time of receiving a passbook without passbook as the price for purchase, I used the branch of ○○○○○ Dong, which was traded by ○○○○○○ Dong, a precious metal professional store in Busan ○○○○-dong, and also ○○○○○-dong, and this ○○-do was also prepared by ○○-do. This ○○-do, other than the Plaintiff, prepares a card directly prepared in the form of transferring the purchase price to ○○○-dong ○○○○-dong (representative title ○), jum (representative title ○), jum (representative title ○), jum (representative title ○), and jum (representative title ○).

(6) In addition, while operating ○○○○○, ○○○○ had lent the name of ○○○○○, to open and use the account of ○○○ branch of the Nonghyup National Federation, which was transferred KRW 20,152,00 from ○○○○ on December 29, 2001 to the account under the name of ○○○○○○○, and the details of the withdrawal from the account under the name of ○○○○ on the date on which the Plaintiff paid the purchase amount are as follows.

Omission of the Table

(7) The Plaintiff did not engage in a direct transaction with the ○○○ △△△△, etc. for the purpose of receiving the present from the ○○○ ice.

(8) On the other hand, at the present when this ○○○△△△ was delivered from this e-mail, the Defendant received a disposition of correction or notification of value-added tax on the ground that the relevant purchase tax invoice was false tax invoice, and filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the said disposition of correction or notification of value-added tax, but the judgment was rendered against the first instance court (Seoul District Court 2007Guhap4927), and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it did not appeal the said

[인정 근거] 갑 1호증, 갑 3내지 5호증의 각 1내지 4, 갑 9호증의 1 내지 27, 갑 10호증의 1 , 갑 16호증의 1, 2, 갑 19호증의 1, 2, 갑 20호증의 1, 내지 69, 갑 21호증의 1 내지 61, 을 4, 5, 6호증, 을 9호증의 1 내지 6, 을 13호증의 1 내지 7, 을 14 내지 18호증, 을 19호증의 1 내지 5, 을 27, 28, 29호증의 각 기재, 증인 이○림의 일부 증언(아래에서 믿지 아니ㅏ는 부분 제외), 변론 전체의 취지

D. Determination

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions based on direct evidence or circumstances. If the defendant has proved to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to dispute the illegality of the defendant's disposition to present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(5) In light of the above legal principles, although ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue, the Plaintiff’s sales revenue on behalf of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue was proved to have been traded in real, and △○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue on behalf of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue, and the Plaintiff’s sales revenue on behalf of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue, and the Plaintiff’s sales revenue on behalf of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s sales revenue on behalf of ○○○○○○○’s sales revenue, it is difficult to find out that the Plaintiff’s sales revenue on the instant sales revenue from ○○○’s sales revenue.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.