Whether a tax invoice received from a purchaser at present is false or not.

In light of the fact that the difference between the remittance amount and the refunded amount is about KRW 00,000,000 won, the imposition of value-added tax is presumed to be a fee for the issuance of the tax invoice, and there is no objective evidence on the transaction.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 12,259,460 on October 10, 2006, value-added tax of KRW 16,779,770 on the first quarter of 2001, value-added tax of KRW 10,518,980 on the second quarter of 2002, and imposition of value-added tax of KRW 13,689,120 on the second quarter of 201 against Plaintiff ○○ on November 7, 2006, respectively, and imposition of value-added tax of KRW 11,679,250 on the first quarter of 202 against Plaintiff ○○ on the second quarter of 201.

2. Purport of appeal

same as the entry.

1. Details of the disposition;

(A) The Plaintiffs are married couple, and Plaintiff ○○-1 ○○○-1 ○○○○○○○○-dong, Busan, is a business entity operating each gold product musical retail business with the trade name of F-20 ○○○○○○, and Plaintiff ○○, a business entity operating each gold product musical business with the trade name of “○○○○” as “○○-20 ○○” from the same shopping G-20 ○○. The external affairs, such as the current purchase or transfer of purchase funds, were dealt with en bloc by Plaintiff ○○.

(B) The Plaintiffs received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from the ○○○○○ △△ice Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○”) as follows. From the output tax amount for each taxable period, the Plaintiffs deducted the value-added tax amount on the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount from the output tax amount for each taxable period, and reported and paid each value-added tax from the first to the first half of 2001.

(C) The Defendant notified the director of the tax office of the Nam-gu of the taxation data that ○○○ju issued a false tax invoice without real transaction. The Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice issued without real transaction and deducted the relevant input tax amount. On October 10, 2006, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff’s notice of the increase or decrease in the value-added tax amounting to 12,259,460 won (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), 16,79,770 won, 10, 2001, and 10,518,980 won of value-added tax for the first half of 202, and issued the Plaintiff’s notice of the increase or decrease in the value-added tax for 201, 13,689, 120, 120, 116, 200-added tax for the second half of 202 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant orders”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7-1 through 8, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 32, Eul evidence 2-1 through 18, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the plaintiffs purchased the present tax invoice corresponding to the tax invoice of this case from ○○ △△ ice and deposited all of the proceeds into the account of ○○ △△ ice, the plaintiffs merely concluded that the plaintiffs received the tax invoice of this case without real transactions on the grounds that they were suspected of having been accused of committing a criminal suspect on data without undergoing a specific investigation or confirmation on the plaintiffs. Each of the dispositions of this case that the plaintiffs received without real transactions is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Facts of recognition

(1) ○○○쥬얼리는 조○호가 자본금 5,000만 원으로 설립한 회사로 2003년 1기에 주식회사 ○환무역, ○○○이딩 주식회사, 주식회사 ○○퀸, ○우골드 주식회사 등으로부터 총 214,036,000,000원 상당의 지금 등을 매입하여 주식회사 ○○○○골드 외 21개 업체에 판매하였다고 신고하였는데 이러한 매입처 회사들은 관할 세무서의 조사 결과 자료상으로 인정되었다. ○○○쥬얼리가 2003년 1기의 매입액 중 주식회사 ○환무역 등의 업체들로부터 매입하였다는 금액은 99.9%에 달하는 반면, 남대문세무서에서 ○○○쥬얼리를 자료상 혐의로 조사하면서 매출처를 조사한 결과 매출액의 81.3%에 해당하는 매출세금계산서가 주식회사 ○○○○골드 외 21개 업체에게 발행된 것으로 나타났고, 그 매출처들의 대부분은 자료상 등의 범죄전력이 있는 업체로 밝혀졌다. 남대문세무서장은 2006. 3. 2. ○○○쥬얼리가 2001. 3. 5.부터 2003. 12. 31.까지 매입세금계산서의 대부분을 자료상으로 고발된 업체로부터 수취하였고, ○○○쥬얼리가 발행한 매출세금계산서도 가공의 매출세금계산서라는 이유로 ○○○쥬얼리와 그 대표자 조○호를 조세범처벌법위반 등 혐의로 고발하였는데, 현재 조○호의 소재불명으로 기소중지 상태에 있다.

(2) The sales revenue amounting to KRW 102.3 billion in sales revenue in 2001, KRW 238.1 billion in sales revenue in 2002, KRW 900 million in sales revenue in 2002, KRW 200 million in sales sales revenue in 2003, KRW 214.2 billion in sales revenue in 2003, and KRW 200 million in sales revenue in 2003, KRW 200 million in the second period in 2003, the sales revenue was reduced to KRW 200 million in sales revenue.

(3) The plaintiffs were introduced ○○○ juice from the representative of ○○○○○○○, a precious metal specialty located in Busan, and there were two times the payment of purchase amount, which was entered in the tax invoice of this case, and there was no passbook transfer from the passbook to the passbook of ○○ △○○ Do through ○○ Doe two times, and all the remainder have been remitted to ○○ Doe by using telebank. This ○ Doe, other than the plaintiffs, has also been transferred to ○○ ○○ ○ (representative ○○), ○ ○○ ○○ (representative ○○), ○○ ○○ Do (representative Kim ○), and ○ ○ ○ Do (representative ○ ○ Do).

(4) Around 15:00 on May 8, 2001, on which the first transaction with ○○ △△△△ and the first transaction began, Plaintiff ○○ transferred KRW 20,000,000,000 from ○○ △△ to ○○ △△△△△, which received KRW 22,80,000, and later received KRW 22,226,000,000, and then again transferred KRW 5,226,00,00 to ○ ○ ○○ △ △△ △, and was issued one purchase tax invoice (a total supply price of KRW 25,26,674) in the name of the Plaintiffs.

(5) On May 28, 2001, the second transaction day, around 16:00, the Plaintiff ○○ transferred KRW 12,773,000 to ○○△△△△, and immediately deposited KRW 12,00,000, and was issued one tax invoice (supply price of KRW 12,773,00).

(6) On June 7, 200, the third transaction day, around 16:00, the Plaintiff ○○ transferred KRW 24,692,00 to ○○△△△, the third transaction day, and immediately received KRW 23,952,00 from ○○ Forest to transfer KRW 23,952,00 in total twice, and then received one tax invoice (supply price of KRW 24,693,328).

(7) On June 13, 200, the fourth transaction day, around 16:00, Plaintiff ○○ transferred KRW 12,600,000 to ○○○○○ ice, and immediately deposited KRW 12,20,000, and received one tax invoice (supply price of KRW 12,600,005).

(8) There is no objective document, such as a transport certificate or acceptance certificate, which can prove the delivery between the company ○○ Trade that the plaintiffs delivered the present purchased from ○○○△ ice and the plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence No. 6-1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The general legal principle of proving the falsity of the tax invoice

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction, on the basis of direct evidence or circumstances. If the defendant has proved to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to dispute the illegality of the defendant's disposition to present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) Whether the instant tax invoice was false and the burden of proof

(A) First, as shown in the above facts of recognition, since all sellers who supplied ○○ △△△, issued a false tax invoice, all of them could not be seen as having been able to supply the present tax invoice to their sales offices, as a natural consequence, as it is difficult to say that ○○ △△△△△△△ which has not been currently supplied, even though the sales revenue of ○○ △△△△ for the purpose of wholesale profit now reached the number of billion won, the sales revenue amount was exceeded KRW 100 billion, even though the sales revenue increased in 2003, and the sales revenue increased in 200 million, after the tax investigation of the false tax invoice was conducted, the sales revenue reported prior to the execution of the tax investigation of ○○ △△△△△△△ was almost all false, and therefore, the plaintiffs' purchase tax invoice issued from the ○○ △△△△ is very false and there is no possibility that there is no real after the purchase tax invoice issued by the plaintiffs.

(B) In addition, in light of the fact that: (a) Plaintiff ○○○△△△△, starting a transaction with the Plaintiff ○○△△△△, transferred the amount equivalent to the consideration for supply of the instant tax invoice with respect to all transactions; and (b) in light of the deposit time, amount, depositee, etc., it can be deemed that Plaintiff ○○○○ was returned the money wired to ○○○○○○○; (b) accordingly, the instant tax invoice was issued; and (c) the difference between the remittance amount and the returned amount was KRW 0,000,00,000, it is presumed that Plaintiff ○○○○○○○ was in the name of the commission for the issuance of the said tax invoice; and (c) thereafter, there was no deposit money returned from Plaintiff ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ account, but no other money was returned to the Plaintiff ○○○○○○ account received the money in the instant tax invoice.

(C) As can be seen, since almost all of the tax invoices issued by ○○ △△△ is highly likely to be false that the actual transaction was not accompanied by the actual transaction, and among them, the fact that the plaintiffs received the refund after remitting the price to the tax invoices of this case issued by the plaintiffs, the defendant can be deemed to have proved that the tax invoices of this case are false to the extent reasonably acceptable. Therefore, even though the burden of proof is converted and the tax invoices issued by ○○ △△△△△△△ is most false, even though the plaintiffs who are in the position of easy to present relevant evidence and materials are in the position of easy to present, they should prove that only the tax invoices of this case issued by ○○ △△△△△△△△△△△△ is a true tax invoice accompanied by the actual transaction. The plaintiffs did not present any objective evidence, such as a delivery invoice or receipt, which is accompanied by the issuance of the tax invoices of this case, and they did not present the purchase of the tax invoices of this case without any verification of the actual transaction of this case.

(D) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s lack of proof on the fact that the instant tax invoice is highly likely to be a false tax invoice, while it is true. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false shall be deemed lawful. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are all dismissed due to the lack of reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Supplementary District Court Decision 2007Guhap2815, May 22, 2008]

1. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of October 10, 2006 on the Plaintiff for the first term of 12,259,460 won, value-added tax for the second term of 2001, value-added tax for the second term of 16,779,770 won, value-added tax for the first term of 2002, value-added tax for the first term of 10,518,980 won, and the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2001 against the Plaintiff OO on November 7, 2006, each disposition of 13,689,120 won, value-added tax for the second term of 201, value-added tax for the first term of 11,679,250 won, shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiffs, as married couple, are the plaintiff OO-O's O-O's O-O's O-O's O-O's 'O', the plaintiff O-O's 'O's 'O-O's 'O's 'O-O' is a business operator who runs each gold product music retail business in the same commercial building 'O-O', 'O', 'O', 'OO', 'OOOO' (hereinafter 'OOO') received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter 'the tax invoice in this case') as follows, from the output tax amount in each taxable period, after deducting the value-added tax amount under the tax invoice in this case from the output tax amount in each taxable period as the input tax amount, each value-added tax was reported and paid from 1st to 1st 2001 to 202.'

Taxation Period

Purchase

Value of supply (total value)

Amount of tax

Total Amount

1

MaximumO

1, 2001

4

56,981,000

5,698,100

62,679,100

2

201

16

81,475,000

8,147,500

89,622,500

3

1, 2002

15

53,423,00

5,342,300

58,765,300

Sub-committees

191,879,000

19,187,900

211,066,900

4

HanO

201

13

68,139,000

6,813,900

74,952,900

5

1, 2002

5

60,877,000

6,087,700

66,964,700

Sub-committees

129,016,000

12,901,600

141,917,600

C. The Defendant notified the head of the OOO of the taxation data that OOO issued a tax invoice without a real transaction. Considering that the instant tax invoice was issued without a real transaction and deducted the relevant input tax amount on October 10, 2006, the Defendant issued an increase or decrease of the value-added tax of 12,259,460 won (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the first term of 2001, value-added tax of 16,779,770 won for the second term of 201, and value-added tax of 10,518,980 won for the first term of 206, 2006, 13,689, 120 won for the second term of 201, and 16, 2002, 207, 2009, 207, 2000 won for each of the instant dispositions (hereinafter referred to as “each of each of the instant dispositions”).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7-1 through 8, Gap evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 32, Eul evidence 2-1 through 18, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, 3, 4-1, 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the plaintiffs purchased the tax invoice corresponding to the tax invoice of this case from OOO and deposited all of the proceeds into the account of OOOOO, the plaintiffs merely concluded that the plaintiffs received the tax invoice of this case without real transactions on the grounds that it is a company suspected of being accused of material facts, without undergoing specific investigation or confirmation with the plaintiffs. Each disposition of this case by the defendant is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The instant tax invoice is a tax invoice processed without an actual transaction.

(B) Even if a domestic or actual transaction fact is recognized, the plaintiffs purchase a workplace located in OO-dong O-dong, O-O-O building, but the tax invoice of this case contains the business registration number of the workplace located in O-O-O. Thus, the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice stating differently from the fact that the "business registration number of the entity that supplies", which is a requisite entry, is the necessary entry.

(C) Therefore, each of the dispositions in this case, which the Plaintiffs did not deduct the input tax amount reported on the basis of the false tax invoice, is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he/she shall deliver an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, at the time provided for in Article 9 (referring to the time prescribed otherwise by Presidential Decree, if any). In such cases, after issuing a tax invoice, a tax invoice may be modified as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in cases where any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error or correction, arises

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

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 following input tax amounts 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, except in such case as prescribed by

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

(hereinafter referred to as "not more than 50

C. Determination

(1) Whether it is a false tax invoice without an actual transaction

The burden of proving 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 value of supply, which is a tax base, is, in principle, at the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu2431, Sept. 22, 1992): Provided, that only where the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process are revealed, the other party can only be able to prove the circumstances in which the pertinent facts in question cannot be eligible for the application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13,

(5) According to the facts and circumstances that each of the above O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-U-O-O-O-U-O-O-owned's purchase of the above-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-owned's purchase of the above-O-O-O-O-O-owned's purchase of the above-O-O-O-O-O-O-owned's purchase of the non-indicted--O-O-O-O-O-owned's purchase of the non-indicted--O-O-O-U-owned's purchase of the above-O-O-U-owned's purchase of the non-indicted- of the above evidence and the facts that the plaintiffs were informed of the non-O-O-O-O-owned's purchase of the non-O- of the above-O-O-O- of the non-indicted's purchase of the non-O-O-O-O-state-owned materials.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claims are reasonable, all of them shall be accepted, and it is decided as per Disposition.