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

A. In filing a tax invoice (A.6, 2000 won + value 89.55 million won + value 89550,000 won) on the aggregate received from the Ga○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ga○ Construction”) for the business year of 2002 and the corporate tax for the business year of 2002 and the value-added tax for the first year of 2002, the Plaintiff (i.e., Cheongcho-si, Cheongcho-si, Cheongcho-si, Cheongcho-dong, 487-108, and (ii) transferred the place of business to 409-10, Jul. 3, 2007.

B. On January 4, 2007, on the ground that the tax invoice of this case was issued falsely without any actual transactional relationship, the director of the competent tax office issued each disposition imposing KRW 18,902,390,390 as the corporate tax for the business year 2002, deducting the purchase amount on the tax invoice of this case from the deductible expenses, and imposed each disposition imposing KRW 18,902,390 as the value-added tax for the first period of January 9, 2007, by deducting the purchase amount from the input tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(c) On January 22, 2008, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the tax base and amount by reviewing whether or not the Plaintiff received the de facto services from ○ Construction and paid 98.45 million won or not, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the request on April 9, 2007.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant reviewed the issue of whether the instant tax invoice was issued through the actual transactional relationship (as recognized in this paragraph, the Plaintiff’s investigation was conducted by the Defendant following the Plaintiff’s transfer of the location of the location of July 3, 2007 to Young-si). The Plaintiff concluded that the Plaintiff was not actually supplied with services from ○○ Construction, and maintained the instant disposition of imposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the imposition disposition of the instant case is lawful; and

(a)the master of the plaintiff;

(1) On April 19, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. to determine the construction cost for the portion of the “service route structures” among the “service site rearrangement works in the Ho-Myeon area,” which the Plaintiff received from the original Agricultural Technology Center, as KRW 9,00,000,000 (including value-added tax). On June 20, 2002, the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from ○ Construction on or around June 20, 2002. On July 11, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred the construction cost of KRW 9,845,00 (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 550,00,00,000 from the fees for the use of the permanent office) to the deposit account of ○ Construction through Internet banking.

(2) However, in light of the fact that ○○ Construction was revealed as data, and the Plaintiff’s remittance of the money to the deposit account of ○○ Construction was separated and withdrawn as KRW 94.2 million on the same day and KRW 4.2 million on the same day, the Defendant determined that the transaction between the Plaintiff and ○○ Construction was a processed transaction on the basis of the fact that ○○ Construction was presumed to be a false tax invoice issuance fee and that there was no transaction through the said deposit account.

(3) However, in full view of the following: (a) the subcontract agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Ga○ Construction (Evidence No. 5-1), Internet banking remittance data (Evidence No. 7), the representative director of Ga○ Construction (Evidence No. 13), and the statement (Evidence No. 15) at an investigative agency, which stated that there was a real transaction relationship with the Plaintiff; and (b) the strong name of the Plaintiff was subject to a non-suspect of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to the instant tax invoice, and that the portion was not included in the facts charged in the Do○○ (Evidence No. 17), the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful by deeming the instant tax invoice to have been made by the processing transaction.

(b) relevant statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In principle, in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of a taxation disposition on the grounds of illegality, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the fact of taxation requirements. However, in the event that a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by a taxpayer has been falsely prepared without real transactions, and there are special circumstances such as the purpose of the tax obligor’s assertion and the case where it is proved to the extent that the other party to the payment is false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for a taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually disbursed, in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances such as the purpose of the tax obligor’s assertion and the other party to the payment thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 2005Du1640

(2) 이 사건 세금계산서가 실제 거래관계 없이 허위로 작성된 것인지의 점에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 5호증의 2, 갑 8, 13, 15, 17호증, 을 2호증, 을 8호증의 2, 을 9 내지 12호증(가지번호 포함), 을 14호증의 2 내지 5, 을 15, 18호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체 의 취지를 더하여 보면, ① 가○건설의 실제 대표자인 강○명은 2001. 9. 20. 박결을 대표자로, 서울 은○구 대○동 49-24 (3층)를 사업장 주소지 및 본점 소재지로 하여 '가○건설'이라는 상호로 사업자등록을 하였는데, 조사 결과 가○건설이 위 사업장 소재지로 등재된 건물에 관하여 실제로 임대차계약을 체결하거나 입주한 적은 없는 사실, ② 가○건설은 이 사건 세금계산서상의 금액을 매출세액으로 신고하지 않았을 뿐만 아니라, 부가가치세 신고내역상 매출세액이 2001년 2기분 1억 1,1700만 원, 2002년 1기분 27억 2,950만 원, 2002년 2기분 2억 7,210만 원임에 반하여, 근로소득원천징수 신고내역은 2001. 10.과 2001. 11.에 각 지급인원 3명, 지급액 190만 원, 2002년 9월에 지급 인원 4명, 지급액 510만 원에 불과하고, 원천징수한 근로소득세를 납부하지도 않은 사실, ③ 가○건설은 서대문세무서장에 의하여 2002. 12. 31.자로 직권 폐업 처리되었는데, 2001년 2기분 매입세액 중 대부분은 자료상으로 고발된 업체인 서○포텍 주식회사로부터 교부받은 허위의 세금계산서를 부가가치세 신고시 자료로 제출하였고, 사업자 등록을 한 때로부터 2002년 2기분까지 공사와 관련한 매입액은 전혀 없는 사실, ④ 강○평은 2006. 8. 21. 2001. 10. 31.경부터 2002. 12. 20.까지 사이에 일신건설 주식회사 등에게 5회에 걸쳐 합계 1억 1,988만 원 상당의 허위 매출세금계산서를 발행하였다 는 공소사실로 벌금 1,000만 원의 약식명령이 청구된 사실(사건검색 결과 2006. 11. 30. 공소사실이 모두 유죄로 인정되어 벌금 600만 원을 선고받았고, 2007. 4. 11. 항소 기각된 후 같은 달 19. 확정되었다), ⑤ 원고는 2002. 7. 11. 인터넷뱅킹을 통해 가○건설의 예금계화로 9,845만 원을 송금하였는데, 위 송금된 돈은 같은 날 9,420만 원 및 420만 원으로 분리・인출되었고, 가○건설의 위 예금계화는 그 후 다른 거래내역이 전 혀 없는 사실(잔액 6만 원이 전화요금으로 인출되었을 뿐이다), ⑥ 강○평은 원고에게 이 사건 세금계산서가 실제 공사계약에 기해 발행된 것이라는 내용의 확인서(갑 13호증)를 작성하여 주면서 원고로부터 송금받은 위 돈을 채○식 등 13명에 대한 노임 등으로 지급하였다는 내용의 영수증을 첨부하였으나, 위 영수증에 영수인으로 기재된 사람들 중 근무 여부가 확인된 김○수, 김○묵, 박○일, 전원 등 4인(나머지 9명은 근무 여부가 확인되지 않고 있다)은 '신○면 종○지구 경지정리공사' 현장에서 일한 적조차 없음을 확인해 준 사실, ⑦ 강○평의 진술(갑 15호증)에 의하면 원고에게 가○건설을 소개해 준 사람은 성림종합건설 주식회사의 실제 대표자인 이성수인데, 위 회사 역시 2001년부터 2002년까지 사이에 56억 5,273만 원 상당의 허위 세금계산서를 발행하였다는 이유로 2003. 9. 고발된 비정상적인 회사인 사실, ⑧ 원고는 이 사건 외에도 2004 년 1기분 부가가치세와 2004사업연도 귀속 법인세를 신고・납부함에 있어 박○준이 발행한 합계 2억 4,301만 원 상당의 건축자재 매입 세금계산서 6장을 제출하였으나, 속초세무서장은 위 세금계산서 역시 설제 거래 없이 발행된 허위의 세금계산서라는 이유로 원고에 대하여 2006. 4. 20. 2004년 1기분 부가가치세 33,710,340원을, 2007. 4. 2. 2004사업연도 귀속 법인세 91,911,970원을 각 경정・고지하였는데, 원고는 부가가치세에 대하여는 이의신청을 제기하지 않았고 법인세에 대하여는 이의신청을 제기하여 기각되었으나 그 후 심사청구나 심판청구를 하지 않음으로써 그대로 확정된 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

(3) According to the above facts of recognition, ○○ Construction is merely a company established for the purpose of using ○○ horizontal data for the purpose of using it, and the tax invoice of this case can be deemed as having been sufficiently proven that it was issued by ○○ Construction without any actual transactional relationship. Therefore, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice of this case was issued due to the actual subcontract construction contract.

(4) However, the lower contract document (Evidence 5-1 of the evidence No. 5) between the Plaintiff and the Ga ○ Construction, which the Plaintiff cited as supporting material on this point, is not reliable because it is possible to prepare it at will during a long period between the two parties, and each written confirmation (Evidence No. 11, 12, and 13 of the evidence No. 11) which is the actual representative of the Ga ○○ Construction’s Ga Ga Ga ○ Construction’s Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga, also is not reliable in light of the two persons’ status and her criminal records. Although the Do Do Do Do decided on the issuance of the tax invoice of this case was not prosecuted as violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Evidence No. 17), it is difficult to view that the tax invoice of this case was issued in the actual contract relationship, and otherwise, the Plaintiff did not submit books or other reliable evidence as to the fact that the construction related to the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.