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

Cheong-gu Office

피고가 원고에 대하여 한 2013. 3. 1.자 2008년 1기분 귀속 부가가치세 ㅇㅇㅇ원,

2013. 3.경 2008년 2기분 귀속 부가가치세 ㅇㅇㅇ원, 2013. 3. 1.자 2009년 1기분 귀속 부가가치세 ㅇㅇㅇ원, 2013. 3. 4.자 2008년 귀속 법인세 ㅇㅇㅇ원, 2013. 3. 4.자 2009년 귀속 법인세 ㅇㅇㅇ원의 각 부과처분을 취소한다(소장 청구취지 기재의위 각 처분의 처분일자 '2013. 2. 15.' 및 2008년 2기분 귀속 부가가치세 'ㅇㅇㅇ원'은 오기로 보인다).

가. 원고는 2006. 5. 24. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ로 DDD, D층 DD호(DDD, DDDDD)를 본점소재지로 하여 토목건축 공사업 등을 영위할 목적으로 설립된 회사이다.

B. The Plaintiff received DDA and AA during the first taxable period in 2008, as indicated in the attached Table, from each of the medium and medium enterprises (the two individual enterprises; hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) with the total value of supply in the purchase tax invoice 9 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) of DD won in the name of the representative on the business registration of each of the key transaction parties, and remitted each price to the bank account under the name of the representative on the business registration of each of the key transaction parties, and filed a return and payment by including the value of supply and the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice in the deductible expenses and the input tax amount of the value-added tax for each of the pertinent taxable periods.

C. On November 201, the Defendant: (a) conducted a related survey on the data on the key trading agencies; and (b) deemed that the instant tax invoice was prepared by falsity without any actual transaction; (c) deducted the value of supply and the amount of input tax from deductible expenses and the amount of input tax from deductible expenses of corporate tax and the amount of input tax; (d) subsequently, on March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a notice of correction and notification of KRW DD (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) for the value-added tax for the first period of March 1, 2008, for the second period of February 2008, for the first period of March 1, 2013, for the value-added tax for the first period of March 2009, for the value-added tax for the first period of March 4, 2013, for corporate tax for the year of March 4, 2013, and for the corporate tax for the year of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to revoke the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 24, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff was supplied with the pertinent service specified in the instant tax invoice by the key transaction office, and paid the price, the instant tax invoice was not issued in a false manner without any actual transaction, and thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Even if the tax invoice of this case is not issued through a transaction with the key transaction office, it is merely merely a nominal transaction and it is deemed that there was an actual transaction corresponding to the tax invoice of this case. Thus, even though the amount equivalent to the tax invoice of this case is recognized as a loss of corporate tax, the corporate tax portion of the disposition of this case, which was not recognized as a loss, is unlawful. In light of the process of issuing the tax invoice of this case and the details of payment, etc., the Plaintiff did not know that it was nominal and did not have been negligent, and thus

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 201, 201, the Defendant’s data-related survey on the key trading office, etc.

A) AA-related

(1) Although AA is registered under the name of AA, it was actually conducted on October 28, 2007 by the company operated by AA, the representative of AA corporation (hereinafter referred to as "AA"), but closed on September 30, 201. During that period, the company reported that sales equivalent to AAA0,000 won and purchase equivalent to AA0,000 won were included in the said sales and purchase, but all of the sales and purchase were investigated as a processing transaction.

(2) According to the construction machinery register of AA, on November 5, 2007, the number of excavation aircraft (registration number AAA) was registered under the name of AA (AA) on November 5, 2007, and ex officio on October 14, 2010.

(3) With respect to AA, “AA” stated as follows: “AA is an enterprise opened under the name of the branch owner of the local government-invested vehicle belonging to AA Construction and to respond to unreasonable demands for tax invoices by customers, and has issued a false tax invoice without any actual transaction from the commencement to the closure of the business, regardless of the operation of the above sowing machine.”

B) AA mid-term relationship

(1) AJ has been registered under the name of AA, but in fact, AA has been operated on December 5, 2006 as an enterprise that had been operated by AA, an employee of AA Construction, but closed on August 5, 201; and

The period of time was 2.16 billion won, and 2.093 billion won was reported to be purchased, but all of the above sales and purchase were investigated as a processing transaction.

(2) According to the Construction Machinery Register of AB, the name of BA (AA) on December 11, 2006.

The number of excavations (registration number 02,7274) was registered as a doctor.

(3) AA with respect to AA, the term "the above softeners of the earth during the earth" shall only be named from the Egyptian.

Some of the tax invoices issued under the name of a local government is issued without real transactions, and the remaining portion is issued in the name of another local government owner."

C) AA mid-term relationship

(1) During the period from the first period of September 2006 to the first period of September 201, 201, a company registered under the name of AA Construction, which was an employee of AA, was started on October 27, 2002. However, during the period from the first period of September 2006 to the first period of September 201, a company was reported to have purchased an amount equivalent to KRW AA0,000,000 of the said sales, 98.1% of the said sales, and 98% of the said purchases were investigated as a processing transaction.

(2) According to the Construction Machinery Register of AJ, on October 10, 2007, the name of AA (AA) on October 10, 207.

The number AAAAAAA was registered on his/her part.

(3) AA made an issuance of a tax invoice for AA in the name of the mid-term AA regardless of the operation of the above sowing period. Of these tax invoices, some of the tax invoices were issued without actual transaction, and the remainder was issued in the name of the other local government-invested borrowers with respect to the part on which the other local government-invested borrowers work.

D) AA mid-term relationship

(1) Although AA was registered under the name of AA, it was actually conducted on August 13, 2007 as an enterprise operated by AA, a representative of AA Construction, and was closed on September 30, 201, and during that period, the sales amounting to AAA0,000 won, and purchase amounting to AA0,000 won.

However, all of the above sales and purchases were investigated as a processing transaction.

(2) According to the construction machinery register of AJ, the registration of the Gyeonggi AAAAAAA was made in the name of the mid-term AA (AA) on August 14, 2007, and ex officio on April 9, 2009.

(3) AA made a statement with respect to AB, “A” was an enterprise opened in the name of the State Party A to secure the daily distance of the owners of local vehicles belonging to AA Construction and to respond to unreasonable requests for tax invoices from customers construction companies, and issued false tax invoices without any actual transaction from the commencement to the closure of the business regardless of the operation of the State Party A mid-to-date.”

(e) AA mid-term relationship

(1) Although AA is registered under the name of AA, a construction employee, but in fact, AA was operated on January 10, 2009 as a representative of AA Construction, and closed on September 30, 201, and during that period, reported that the sales amount equivalent to AAA0,000 won, and the purchase amount equivalent to AA0,000,000 won was included in the sales amount, but all the sales and purchase amount was investigated as a processing transaction.

(2) According to the construction machinery register of the A mid-term period, the registration of the Gyeonggi-do AAAA was made in the name of the A mid-term period (AA) on February 5, 2009, and the registration was ex officio on September 21, 201.

(3) AA with respect to the period of AA, the term "A" means ensuring the daily distance of local government-invested vehicles belonging to the Construction of AA, and to respond to unreasonable requests for tax invoices from customers.

As an enterprise opened in the name of AA, a false tax invoice without real transactions was issued from the commencement to the closure of business regardless of the operation of the above sowing machine."

2) The transaction amount according to the instant tax invoice, which the Plaintiff transferred to each of the accounts during the mid-term A, AA mid-term, AA mid-term, and A mid-term, was either withdrawn in cash other than the full amount or value-added tax, or transferred to another person’s personal account through an automation device, etc. (AA, etc.) after the transfer.

3) AA and AA were accused of a criminal charge against the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which is the actual operator, based on the details of relevant investigation into the issues trading office, and accordingly, A and AA were subject to criminal punishment as listed below. The criminal charge includes the details that AA and AA issued the instant tax invoice while operating the issues trading office.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice was issued falsely without real transaction

In an administrative litigation seeking 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 taxation requirement fact. Thus, the tax authority should bear the burden of proving necessary expenses, which are the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, only when there are special circumstances such as where a tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was proved to the extent that it is reasonable by the tax authority to dispute whether it is real expenses and the taxpayer's assertion and where it is proved to the extent that the other party to the payment was false, it is easy for the taxpayer to present data such as books and evidence regarding the fact that such expenses were actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 209).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the above facts of recognition, i.e., (i) the key trading office is AA which operates most of the construction of AA and AA which is its employees.

④ According to the fact that the instant tax invoice was issued merely for the purpose of issuing false tax invoices for the purpose of operation of the Plaintiff, it appears that the instant tax invoice was issued as part of the instant transaction. ② The key transaction entity did not own construction machinery itself in its name, which could substantially provide corresponding services to the amount of supply of the instant tax invoice; ③ the key transaction entity withdraws the instant tax invoice from cash or transfers it to a bank account in its name, which is difficult to view as a normal transaction type; ④ the instant tax invoice was entered in the instant tax invoice, including the instant tax invoice, and thus, it appears that the instant tax invoice was proved that there was no actual transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice, including the instant tax invoice, for the reason that the instant tax invoice was entered and submitted, and that there were no actual transaction corresponding to the “AA” and the instant tax invoice, including the instant tax invoice, for each of the instant construction machinery that was entered in the 20th Construction Works and the instant tax invoice, and thus, there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was an actual transaction corresponding to the entry in the instant tax invoice.

2) Recognition of corporate tax losses, good faith, and without fault

As seen earlier, the tax invoice of this case is issued falsely without accompanying actual transactions. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit, which is premised on the issuance of the tax invoice of this case by the name ledger.

3. Conclusion

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