Busan High Court 2015Nu20022 ( October 07, 2015)

Cho High Court Decision 2013 Deputy 2942 ( October 15, 2013)

It is unreasonable that the purchase deduction for the processing purchase is not made, and that the output tax amount is not reduced;

Even if the plaintiff is confirmed as a mere conduit, it is inappropriate to deduct only the input tax amount for the plaintiff, and that the sales amount is not deducted from the tax base.

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

Disposition Imposing Value-Added Tax

△△△△△ (State)

Head of tax office

Busan High Court Decision 2015Nu20022 Decided September 25, 2015

March 10, 2016

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Whether the imposition of value-added tax in each of the instant dispositions is legitimate, excluding the unjustly underreported penalty tax

The lower court, based on the adopted evidence, 1 the Plaintiff’s non-identical wholesale business entity, including the East scoops

으로부터 2010년 제2기 내지 2011년 제1기 과세기간 중 공급가액 합계 923,565,200원의 매입세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 제1세금계산서'라고 한다)를 교부받은 사실, ② 원고가 주식회사 ★★(이하 '★★'이라고 한다)으로부터 2011년 제1기 과세기간 중 공급가액 합계 460,597,000원의 매입세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 제2세금계산서'라고 한다)를 교부받은 사실, ③ 원고는 이 사건 각 세금계산서 관련 매입세액을 공제하여 피고에게2010년 제2기 및 2011년 제1기 부가가치세를 신고・납부한 사실 등을 인정한 다음,그 판시와 같은 사정에 비추어 보면 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 사실과 다른 세금계산서에 해당한다는 이유로, 피고가 그 매입세액을 불공제하여 원고에게 한 이 사건 각 부가가치세 부과처분 중 부당과소신고 가산세를 제외한 부분은 적법하다고 판단하였다.

The Plaintiff’s allegation in the grounds of appeal that each of the instant tax invoices does not constitute a false tax invoice is merely an error of selecting evidence or finding facts, which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower court’s decision in light of the records, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding contractual parties, or by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience. However, the lower court’s determination that the part of the disposition imposing value-added tax of each of the instant tax invoices is lawful for the following reasons.

원심판결 이유와 기록에 의하면 ① 이 사건 제1세금계산서에 기재된 공급가액 상당의 고철은 실제로는 ◈◈이 주식회사 ○○ 또는 주식회사 ◉◉(이하 통틀어 '○○ 등'이라고 한다)에 직접 공급한 것인데, 원고가 마치 ◈◈으로부터 위 고철을 공급받은 것처럼 이 사건 제1세금계산서를 교부받은 사실, ② 원고는 2015.4. 13.자 준비서면에서 이 사건 제1세금계산서에 기재된 고철의 실제 거래당사자가 ◈◈과 ○○ 등이라면 원고가 ○○ 등에 위 고철을 판매한 것도 허위매출이므로 그 매출세액을 부가가치세 과세표준에서 제외하여야 한다는 취지로 주장하였고, 위 준

On April 24, 2015, it can be known that the non-document was stated on the first date for pleading in the lower court.

Therefore, the lower court should have assessed the value-added tax by excluding the amount of unfair underreporting tax, solely on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, without any examination and determination as to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion, was lawful. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the value-added tax and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

B. Whether the imposition of additional tax not to prove corporate tax related to the tax invoice 2 of this case is legitimate

The allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is the first argument in the final appeal and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Whether each of the instant value-added taxes is legitimate to impose penalty taxes for unlawful underreporting

원심은 그 채택 증거에 의하여 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고가 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 매입세액에 상당하는 금액을 ◈◈이나 ★★에게 이미 지급하였다고 주장하고 있는 이 사건에서, 원고에게 ◈◈과 ★★이 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 매출세액을 제외하고 부가가치세를 신고・납부하거나 이를 환급받는 등의 방법으로 부가가치세 납부의무를 면탈함으로써 원고가 이 사건 각 세금계산서에 의하여 매입세액의 공제를 받는 것이 결과적으로 국가의 조세수입 감소를 가져오게 될 것이라는 점에 관한 인식이 있었다는 점에 관하여 피고로부터 아무런 주장・증명이 없다

On the ground that each of the instant value-added tax imposition charges was illegal.

Examining in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s above-reported additional charges

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the tax, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

B. Whether the imposition of additional tax against non-Evidence of corporate tax related to the 1 tax invoice of this case is legitimate

Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "where a corporation (excluding a corporation prescribed by Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree in connection with a business and fails to receive evidentiary documents falling under any subparagraph of Article 116(2) or receives false evidentiary documents, the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect an amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount not received or the amount received differently from the fact as a corporate tax, except in cases where the proviso of the same paragraph applies." Therefore, where a corporation receives only false evidentiary documents without being supplied with goods or services, it shall not be subject to additional

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the receipt of the first tax invoice of this case by the plaintiff without being supplied with scrap metal from the same time does not constitute the subject of the additional tax for lack of evidence under Article 76 (5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and it is so argued in the Grounds

In the same way, there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the requirements for imposition of additional dues.

The decision of the Supreme Court cited by the defendant as the ground of appeal is different from the case.

It is not appropriate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff concerning the imposition of value added tax is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the appeal by the defendant are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.