National Tax Service Review Division 2010-0060 (20106.01)

There is no objective evidence on the transfer of goods, and it is judged as a false tax invoice.

The disposition based on the premise that the tax invoice was falsely entered is legitimate in view of the fact that the confession of his criminal facts and the expression of reflectivity is expressed in the criminal trial process, and there is no objective data on the transfer of goods, etc.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2010Guhap15170 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

AAAAA Corporation

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

October 12, 2011

December 14, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 28,713,510 on August 13, 2009 against the Plaintiff for the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2006, KRW 38,758,280 on the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2006, KRW 2,572,200 on the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2007, KRW 1,815,010 on the corporate tax for the year 2006, KRW 4,216,720 on the corporate tax for the year 207 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 24, 2006 to December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices of KRW 225,850,000 for supply price in the first half of 206 taxable period of value-added tax, KRW 265,00 for supply price of KRW 270,00 for the supply price of KRW 205,00 for the first half of 2006, KRW 200 for the individual business AAAAA (No 00-00-00-0) (No 2000-00-00), each of the supply price of KRW 205,00 for the first half of 206, KRW 200 for the individual business entity's purchase tax invoices of KRW 200 for each taxable period of value-added tax (No 2006,000-300).

B. After investigating the Plaintiff, the Defendant determined that the instant tax invoice was a processed transaction, and filed an accusation against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director BB with the investigation agency for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. On August 13, 2009, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 28,713,510, value-added tax for the first term of August 13, 2006, KRW 38,758,280, value-added tax for the second term of 2006, KRW 2,572,200, KRW 1,815,010, corporate tax for the year 2006, KRW 4,216,720 for the corporate tax for the year 207 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on June 1, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The tax invoice received by the Plaintiff from Korea-B was received by Korea-B for the transaction that was transferred to the Plaintiff, as it is, the goods or production facilities purchased by Korea-B from JeonD, NaE, etc. without receiving the tax invoice. Thus, the tax invoice received from Korea-CC is not a processing transaction, but a tax invoice received from Korea-CC

B. Determination

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 through 7 of this case, the plaintiff was prosecuted with the Seoul Central District Court 2010dan154 on the ground that although the representative director B, with respect to the receipt of each purchase tax invoice for the last 1, 2006 and the last 2 years, he did not receive the goods, the plaintiff was not guilty on the ground that he had received the goods equivalent to 225,850,000 won and 265,000 won and 265,000 won and 20 times as if he were supplied with each other, he had submitted a false list of total tax invoices for each purchase tax invoice for the first 1, 206. The court of the first instance accepted the judgment of the court below as the representative director of the AAB corporation around June 206, 200, the plaintiff was not guilty on the ground that 100,000 won and 20,000 won and 160,000 won and 20,0 won, imposed on the above judgment of the appellate court.

3. Conclusion

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