Cho High Court Decision 2008Du3742 (Law No. 97, 17, 2009)

Other tax invoices different from the facts related to the clothing manufacturing industry

It is determined as a processing tax invoice in view of the difference between the supplier and the plaintiff's business items and the amount claimed to have approved bills is not presented to the bank.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,186,50 for the second period of 203 against the Plaintiff on October 15, 2008, value-added tax of KRW 3,452,540 for the first period of 204, value-added tax of KRW 8,718,60 for the second period of 204, value-added tax of KRW 4,462,570 for the first period of 2005, value-added tax of KRW 4,462,57,450 for the first period of 206, and value-added tax of KRW 3,142,260 for the second period of 206, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 1, 1993 to 608-30 of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City BBdong 608-30, the Plaintiff operated leather products manufacturing and wholesale retail business. On September 25, 2009, the Plaintiff closed his business on September 25, 2009. From October 15, 2003 to November 25, 2006, 7,000,000, 21,000, 200,000, 21,000, 21,000, 200, 200, 2006, 205, 2006, 205, 2006, 2005, 206, 2006, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2005, 2006, 2005, 2006, 2005.

B. On August 2007, the head of the EE Tax Office investigated whether the above KimD was based on data, and then accused KimD to the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office for the suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

". Accordingly, on October 15, 2008, the Defendant considered the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and deducted the input tax amount accordingly, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of value-added tax 1,186,50 won for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2003, value-added tax 3,452,540 won for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2004, value-added tax 8,718,600 won for the second term portion of value-added tax in 2004, value-added tax 4,462,570 won for the first term portion of value-added tax in 205, value-added tax 2,487,450 for the first term portion of value-added tax in 206, value-added tax 3,142,260 won for the second term portion of value-added tax in 206, 23,449,920 won for the second term portion of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was issued a tax invoice of this case through actual transactions. In other words, while operating leather, manufacture and wholesale retail business, the Plaintiff was supplied with doping products in total amounting to KRW 152,650,000 from 15 October 15, 2003 to 25 November 2006, the Plaintiff paid 23,400,000 among them after being supplied with doping products, such as leather products, leather products, and clothing parts, which amount to KRW 152,650,00,000, and paid 31,50,000,000 in bills for the remainder of KRW 129,250,00 in bills, and paid the balance in cash.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the tax invoice of this case was received through a processing transaction, not a real transaction, and the statement of Gap 6, 8, and 13 (including each number), and the witness KimD testimony is difficult to believe.

(1) The Sungjin Co., Ltd., which was operated by Kim DD, started on July 31, 2002 and closed on April 30, 2007. The main type of business is the wholesale and retail business of home appliances and household goods, and is different from the item dealing with leather products, products, and wholesale and retail business operated by the Plaintiff. In addition, it is the fact that Sungjin Co., Ltd supplied the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff, and there is no trace of purchasing clothes, raw materials, etc. indicated in the tax invoice of this case from other companies.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff returned the product amounting to KRW 23,400,000 to KimD, it did not receive the revised tax invoice from KimD.

(3) The face value of KRW 31,500,000 (Evidence A 2-1, 2) claimed by the Plaintiff to pay with a bill was not presented to the paying bank.

(4) Although the Plaintiff’s husband KimA transferred KRW 66,780,000 to the account of KimD and its wife, the Plaintiff’s husband was deemed to have immediately deposited KRW 66,780,000 into the account of KimA through a third party.

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.