Criteria for determining false tax invoices

If the agency fails to prove that the tax invoice received from the person who was suspected of being accused of the fact that the tax invoice is not true, it shall be accepted as a normal tax invoice.

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

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of October 10, 2005 against the Plaintiff on KRW 9,772,280, value-added tax for the second term of 2003, value-added tax for the second term of 2003, 16,886,790, value-added tax for the first term of 2004, 8,697,900, and value-added tax for the second term of 2004 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. From March 2003, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) a business operator, who sold quasi-expon on the mutual name “○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○ in ○○○○○○○○○ seat,” issued a purchase tax invoice for the sum of the supply values as indicated below (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”) during the taxable period from 1st to 2nd 2004; and (b) a business operator filed a value-added tax return by deducting the aggregate of the supply values by taxable period from the aggregate of the value-added taxes as the input tax amount.

Classification

Taxation Period

Value of the purchase tax invoice (total)

1

1, 2003

6,181,00 won

2

203

18,804,00 won

3

1, 2004

63,637,00 won

4

204 Second Period

105,673,00 won

B. However, on October 10, 2005, the Defendant deemed that the tax invoice of this case was issued without a real transaction because ○○○○ World constitutes the so-called data, and issued false tax invoices. On October 10, 2005, the Defendant determined the total determined amount of value-added tax for each taxable period including additional tax by deducting each input tax amount from the total determined tax amount, and notified the additional amount of value-added tax after deducting the already paid tax amount from the total determined tax amount.

Classification

(1) Additional tax shall be levied.

(2) Total determined tax amount.

(3) The already paid tax amount.

(4) Additional notified tax amount.

1, 2003

3,154,186

9,864,263

91,979

9,772,280

203

5,006,400

17,124,650

237,854

16,886,790

1, 2004

2,334,205

8,629,678

-68,224

8,697,900

204 Second Period

3,292,770

15,029,355

1,169,294

13,860,060

C. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions is subject to the imposition of each value-added tax on October 10, 2005, as indicated in column 2 of the said Table. However, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each of the instant dispositions on imposition of additional notice in excess of the amount stated in column 3 of the said Table among those dispositions on imposition 10, and thus, the part of each disposition on imposition of additional notice is subject to each of the instant dispositions on imposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap2-1 and 4, Eul 1-1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

As to the Defendant’s assertion that each of the dispositions of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case denying the input tax deduction is unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case without real transaction, even though it purchased the tax invoice of this case from ○○○○○.

(b) Related statutes;

[Valued Tax]

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoice by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or the input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the submitted list of the total tax invoice by customer is not entered or entered differently from the fact, excluding the input tax amount in such

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

2. Not more than the omission;

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false shall, in principle, be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions based on direct evidence or all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 85Nu515, Mar. 24, 1987).

Therefore, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the tax invoice of this case as to whether the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice not accompanied by a real transaction only with Eul evidence Nos. 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4. Rather, according to each evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the head of ○○ Tax Office filed a charge of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act only on suspicion that the ○○○○○○○○○ Police Office received false tax invoice of 3.7.5 billion won and the total purchase amount of 3.7.63 billion won and 3.7.63 billion won and the total purchase amount of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Police Office without a real transaction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the evidence No. 20053, Feb. 3, 2005).

(2) Therefore, each of the instant dispositions denying the input tax deduction of the instant tax invoice on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without a real transaction is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.