The legitimacy of the assertion that the gold bullion actually purchased the disposition by processing transaction

Written confirmation, written answer, etc. that the customer is merely merely a part of the material, not a whole material, and that the representative of the key transaction office has issued a processed tax invoice to the plaintiff shall not be recognized as correct in its content and the preparation process.

Article 17 of Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,153,470 for the second term of February 2001, KRW 1,282,440 for the first term of January 2002, KRW 3,451,450 for the second term of February 2002, KRW 3,812,870 for the first term of January 2003, KRW 3,812,870 for the second term of January 2003, KRW 4,056, KRW 950 for the second term of February 203, and KRW 1,100,00 for the first term of January 204 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in retail business of precious metals, etc. with the trade name referred to in XX-dong PP -X '○○○’, was issued with the purchase tax invoice of KRW 89,455,00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and filed a return after deducting it from the input tax amount, as indicated below, during the period from February 2, 2001 to January 2004, as follows:

Time of Supply

Purchase

Value of Supply

Amount of tax

2, 201 (No. 6, 2001 to November 17, 2001)

3

5,571

57

1, 2002 (from January 26, 2002 to June 5, 2002)

7

6,477

647

2, 202 (from August 27, 2002 to November 29, 2002)

11

18,281

1,828

1, 2003 (from January 17, 2003 to May 22, 2003)

10

24,465

2,446

203. 299.29

6

26,987

2,698

1, 2004 (No. 27, 2004 to March 13, 2004)

2

7,674

767

Total

39

89,455

8,943

(b) An investigation conducted with respect to ○○ Regional Tax Office’s △△△ without a real transaction;

A person who revealed that he was issued a gold account statement, and the defendant was the △△ Department

all of the tax invoices of this case issued without real transactions are different from the fact that they are issued without real transactions.

Value-added tax shall be deducted on December 6, 2006 by deducting the input tax amount from each other, and on December 6, 2006, the amount of value-added tax for two years

1,153,470 won, for the first term of January 2002, 1,282,440 won, for second term of February 2002, 3,451,450 won, for the first term of January 2003.

3,812,870 won, 4,056, 950 won for the second term in 2003, and 1,100,000 won for the first term in 204, respectively. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on February 5, 2007.

However, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed on March 27, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2 through 1-6, 3, 4-1 through 4-38, Eul evidence 1, 5-1 through 5-6, 6, 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff purchased a current tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from △△△, and made a normal transaction, such as paying household checks or cash, the Plaintiff concluded that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without a real transaction solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was an enterprise that was accused of the fact that it was an enterprise. The Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged based on the above recognized evidences, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence Nos. 5-1 through 5-26, 6-1 through 6-4, 7, 8, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 8, 9-1 through 9-3, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the inquiry into ○ Bank Co., Ltd. in this court.

(1) From January 16, 2001 to July 2, 2002, the date of the establishment of the company by △○○ representative.

In addition, after July 2, 2002, ○○○ was registered as the representative director, but the actual representative of this period was Kim○○, the husband of ○○○.

(2) A public official of the ○○ Regional Tax Office under detention in Yeongdeungpo-gu District Tax Office on November 2, 2004

The details of issuance of a tax invoice that does not carry out real transactions in Dol-gu, accompanied by this document are not true.

written a certificate (B) confirming the content of the document.

(3) Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act committed by the Seoul Western District Court on January 27, 2005 at the Seoul Western District Court on January 27, 2005

The above judgment was finally affirmed on the crime, etc. at that time.

(4) The instant tax invoice is a written confirmation of Kim○-○ and a guilty guilty of conviction against Kim○-○.

(The list of crimes) is included in the list of crimes.

(5) On December 15, 2005, at the Seoul Western District Court, the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act) committed in collusion with Kim○○ on December 15, 2005

After having been convicted of anti-crimes, etc., the Seoul High Court, which caused the appellate court, appealed.

On October 18, 2006, the sales office recognizes most of the offenses of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the false receipt of tax invoices by ○○○ on October 18, 2006, but also recognizes the charges, including the sales tax invoice

(1) A part of the tax invoices at issue at the prosecution by ○○○ stated in the Act as real transaction, and the Act as a whole.

(2) The shares are stated to be considered in the sentencing condition, i.e., to specify them.

In light of the fact that the employee of △△△△△ was a real transaction with △△△△△, etc.

For reasons of insufficient recognition as guilty, not guilty was pronounced, and the above judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court.

From February 15, 2007, the appeal was dismissed and finalized.

(6) The Plaintiff’s household checks issued by the Plaintiff during the period from February 2, 2001 to January 2004

○○은행 내방역지점 가계당좌계좌(계좌번호 XXX-XXXXXX-XXXXX)에서 정상적으로 지급되었고, □□□□에서 지금 판매 없이 매출처에 매출세금계산서를 가공으로 발행한 경우에는 주로 실제로 매출이 있었던 것처럼 위장하기 위하여 □□□□의 직원인 최ㅇ묵이 가공세금계산서를 수취한 매출처 명의로 대리입금을 하는 방식을 취하였는데, 위 기간 중 최ㅇ묵이 원고 명의로 □□□□에 대리입금을 하였다는 입금증 등의 자료는 찾을 수 없으며, 위 기간 중 원고가 □□□□으로부터 위 계좌로 대금을 환급받은 내역도 없다.

C. Determination

Whether there was a transaction, such as the supply of goods or services, which is a taxation requirement under the Value-Added Tax Act; or

The burden of proving the value of supply, which is a three-standard supply, is, in principle, at the tax authority (Supreme Court on September 1992).

22. Decision 92Nu2431, etc.: Provided, That it is only possible to prove the circumstances in which the other party cannot be eligible for the application of the empirical rule, only if it is found that the facts in question were proved in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit.

With respect to this case, as shown in the facts of the foregoing recognition, ① the household issued by the Plaintiff

수표가 모두 원고의 계좌에서 정상적으로 결제된 반면, 다른 매출처들과 달리 ㅇㅇ금

A Unless it is recognized that the Plaintiff made a substitute payment or received a refund of the amount, the Plaintiff is not entitled to do so.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the payment has not been made in △△△, and ② △△ is difficult to conclude that the payment has not been made.

The processing ratio is 73.6% and not 100% of the so-called 73.6% of the material, and ③ The substantial representative of △△△.

name or tax invoice of which portion is accurately different from the fact in a criminal case against Cho ○.

The testimony that a real transaction was made by the Customer or the scale of the Customer on the ground that the transaction was not made;

In large cases, etc., (4) the details of the delivery attached to the confirmation document (B) prepared by Kim○○○, which was not prepared by Kim○○ by reporting and arranging the actual data by Kim○○, but prepared by the public official of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, merely confirming that the content of the document was a fact in the detention house.

(5) In light of the Plaintiff’s business type, size, etc., the Plaintiff purchased from △△△.

다는 지금도 그 거래시기나 분량이 이례적인 것이라고 보기 어렵고, 기타 원고가 ㅇㅇ

money is not otherwise found in circumstances that it was involved in or was aware of the tax evasion act.

In full view of the above facts, it is insufficient to presume the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice that is not accompanied by the real transaction only by the facts acknowledged earlier, and there is any other proof that the instant tax invoice is false, contrary to the facts.

shall not be effective.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, so the plaintiff's motion of this case seeking its revocation is unlawful.

The Gu shall accept it for the reason and make a decision as per the disposition.

[Tgu High Court Decision 2007Nu7535, May 30, 2007]

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on December 6, 2006 is revoked in full for the second term portion 1,153,470 won, first term portion 1,282,440 won, second term portion 3,451,450 won, first term portion 3,812,870 won, second term portion 3,812,870 won, second term portion 4,03, second term portion 4,056,950 won, first term portion 1,100,000 won, second term portion 2, 2003, and second term portion 4,056,950 won, and first term portion 1,00,000 won.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, who runs retail business of precious metals, etc. with the trade name of ○○○○-dong, Seoul, 907-○○○-dong, is a businessman who runs the sales business of precious metals, etc. from the second to the first taxable period of 2001 as listed in the following table, received a purchase tax invoice equivalent to KRW 89,45,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and filed a value-added tax return, and subsequently deducted the input tax amount on the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount.

B. The Seoul Regional Tax Office revealed that ○○○○ Fund was a data on which a tax invoice was issued without real transactions. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the increase or decrease of KRW 1,153,470 on December 6, 2006, when all of the instant tax invoices that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff were issued without real transactions, and even if the input tax amount was not deducted as a false tax invoice on December 6, 2006, the amount of value-added tax was 1,282,440 on January 2, 2002, the amount of KRW 3,451,450 on February 2, 2002, the amount of KRW 3,812,870 on January 1, 2003, the amount of KRW 4,056,950 on February 2, 2003, the amount of KRW 10,100 on October 1, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

C. On February 5, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 27, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-6, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 4-1 through 38, Evidence No. 5-1 through 6, Evidence No. 6, Evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff purchased a current tax invoice corresponding to the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff and made a normal transaction, such as settlement of household checks or cash, the Defendant’s determination that the instant tax invoice was received without a real transaction solely on the ground that ○○○ was a material transaction, and the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The amount of ○○○○ was the full-time representative director from January 16, 2001 to July 2, 2002, which was the date of establishment, and after July 2, 2002, ○○○○○○ was registered as the representative director, but the actual representative during the above period was Kim○, who was the husband of ○○○ Nam.

(2) The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on ○○ gold. The amount equivalent to 127,081,081,127,397 won (2,762 companies, sales tax invoices 24,852) out of the total sales amount of 257,79,00,000 won reported by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office from the first to the first of 2004 from the first of 1, 2001, was processed sales. 62,732,92,178 won (7.6% of the processed sales ratio) was 62,732,92,178 won (7.6% of the processed sales ratio) and 850 companies,971,826,00 won among the sales tax invoices issued by the processed sales amount were disposed of by the employee of the ○○○ in the name of the processing trade office or received the remainder from the processing transaction office in cash, and was also refunded the processed sales fee by cash.

(3) On November 2, 2004, when a public official member of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation of data on the ○○○ Fund, Kim ○○ was confirmed on November 2, 2004 that the instant tax invoice was a processed transaction without real transactions.

(4) ○○○ and ○○○ were subject to criminal punishment due to the fact that the processed sales tax invoices were issued in collusion in the actual management of ○○○ Fund (Seoul District Court Decision 2004Dahap204, 385 (combined) decided January 27, 2005, and 198, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2004Da368, 2005Kahap2, 42, 49 (Consolidated), Seoul High Court Decision 2006No62 decided October 18, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7681 Decided February 15, 2007).

(5) From August 28, 2002 to February 3, 2004, ○○○○○○ Fund, an employee of ○○ Fund, transferred 46,394,000 won in total to the account under the name of ○○ Fund.

[Based on recognition] Evidence Nos. 2, evidence Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 8, evidence Nos. 9-1 through 3, and evidence Nos. 10-1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. As such, the defendant must prove the falsity of the tax invoice that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions, based on the direct evidence or all the circumstances. In the case where the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy to present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant's disposition, the defendant's assertion that the tax invoice is not false and that it is necessary to prove that it is consistent with his own assertion. In addition, even if it is not bound by the fact-finding in the criminal trial, the fact recognized as the crime of a final and conclusive criminal judgment on the same factual basis is a flexible evidence, and thus it cannot be acknowledged that it is contrary to the facts unless there are any special circumstances that it is difficult to employ a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the administrative trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276, Sep. 30, 1997; 204Du1946484).

(2) As recognized above, the fact that ○○ Fund issued the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff without real transactions is already determined as guilty in the relevant criminal case. However, as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that ○ Fund purchased the current tax invoice from the Plaintiff and paid the price in cash, there is a result of Gap’s evidence 5-1 through 26, Gap’s evidence 6-1, and Gap’s evidence 7 and the fact-finding on ○ Bank at the court of first instance. However, although the tax invoice of this case contains the original tax invoice, the household check was issued only one million won and the difference between the original amount. From early 2002 to October 203, 2003, it is difficult to find that ○○ Fund was not issued by the Plaintiff’s agent in the form of a false transaction, and that ○○ Fund was not issued in the form of a false transaction, and that it was difficult to find that it was a false transaction with the Plaintiff’s actual account transfer, in view of the fact that ○○ Fund received the payment from the Defendant’s account transfer.

(3) Ultimately, unlike the fact that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was found guilty in the final and conclusive criminal judgment, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant tax invoice from ○○○ Fund, and accordingly, the instant disposition that the same conclusion is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.