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

A. The Plaintiff: (a) deducted the input tax amount of KRW 000 from the tax invoice issued by XX Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ XX”); (b) deducted the input tax amount of KRW 000; and (c) included the value-added tax for the second period of 2009 and the service fee of KRW 000 in deductible expenses; and filed a corporate tax for each business year of 2009.

B. The Defendant, on the ground that “the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice under the processing transaction,” issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second year of 2009 (including additional tax), and KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year of 2009 (including additional tax), respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on February 18, 201, but was dismissed by the Defendant on March 17, 201, and filed a request for examination on June 15, 201, but was dismissed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on September 9, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff was awarded a contract for land purchase and legal advice services from the Korea DevelopmentO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “OO”) for the land purchase services, and subsequently awarded a contract for the land purchase services in XX. The Plaintiff was provided with the land purchase services from XX, paid 00 won in return, and received the instant tax invoice. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice cannot be viewed as a false tax invoice different from the fact.

(2) If the Plaintiff’s land purchase service provided by XX constitutes a processing purchase, the land purchase service provided by the Plaintiff to theO constitutes a processing sale. Accordingly, there is no increased tax amount when the processing sale is deducted from the value-added tax and the corporate tax base.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On May 29, 2008, theO made a contract with the head of the △△△△△△△△△ on the service that "the sales right of neighboring commercial sites within the marketing city was purchased from the buyers and the building was newly constructed on the land and sold to the buyers again." After that, the head of the △△△△△△ was unable to properly perform the service due to a dispute with the creditors, theO terminated the service contract, and filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of obligations and termination of the contract with the Seoul Central District Court (2009Gahap52903). On July 1, 2009, theO deposited KRW 00 on the ground of provisional seizure on October 2, 2009.

(2) On the other hand, ParkA was in charge of participating in the dispute of △△ and coordinating the creditors (the general creditors of △△△, and the creditors adjusted by ParkA appear to be investors). In order to only compensate for losses arising from the termination of the service contract during the above lawsuit, the O accepted it and demanded to conclude an additional service contract, and ParkA demanded that the Plaintiff be the counter-party to the contract in order to avoid provisional seizure by general creditors. Accordingly, on August 17, 2009, the OO entered into a contract for the additional services (other than the purchase of the content of the previous service contract, legal advice service was added) with the Plaintiff, who is the attorney as of August 17, 2009 as the counter-party to the contract.

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff received KRW 000, including value-added tax, from O on August 24, 2009 after completing the service, and on September 8, 2009, received the instant tax invoice and receipt of KRW 000 from XX (which is in the position of representative director) (the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 00,000 as a check on August 24, 2009, but the user was not revealed). Meanwhile, the OO received a tax invoice of KRW 000 from the Plaintiff and reported value-added tax and corporate tax.

(4) Article XX does not impose value-added tax and corporate tax on sales under the instant tax invoice. Based on this, the Defendant determined the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and rendered the instant disposition.

D. Determination

(1) As alleged by the Defendant, there is doubt as to whether the instant tax invoice did not actually generate sales and purchase in light of the following: (a) the additional service contract was made out to the general creditors of △△△ in order to avoid the collection of claims; (b) the user of KRW 00 is unclear; (c) the service contract was not made between the Plaintiff and XX; and (d) the sales stipulated in the instant tax invoice did not report value-added tax and corporate tax.

(2) However, with respect to ① the Plaintiff’s liability under the Plaintiff’s additional contract for services; in light of the fact that the agent or title holder of the contract agreed to the other party if the actor or title holder of the contract for services was a party to the contract; (3) the agent or title holder of the contract should be determined as the party to the contract; and if the actor and title holder fail to agree to the other party’s intent, the other party should be determined by whether he or she would have understood the other party to the contract as the party to the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da76426, Jul. 23, 2009). In light of the fact that the agent or title holder of the contract for additional services could have been aware of the fact that the agent or title holder would have been the party to the contract for the services; (4) the Plaintiff would have been entitled to receive the additional contract for the services from the legal counsel and advice service; and (2) the Plaintiff could have paid the other party’s duty to use the services by way of legal consultation and advice (including value-added).

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of the right to purchase with XX and received the tax invoice of this case after receiving the service from XX [it constitutes deductible expenses as a matter of course, inasmuch as the Plaintiff provided the service in the capacity of an individual, and received the tax invoice of this case in the name of XX, regardless of whether it is an individual or a corporation, it is an individual or a corporation, and the process of entering into the additional service contract (the Plaintiff appears to have known that it would be at a disadvantage under the tax law when it receives the tax invoice under the name of the corporation (the Plaintiff’s receipt of the corporate tax invoice in the course of a transaction with an individual). Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was unaware of the above name, and that there was no negligence in failing to know, and therefore, it is reasonable to recognize the deduction of the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 8, 200

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.