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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 10, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the value-added tax on the first quarter of 2007 against the Plaintiff.

"A. The plaintiff, from June 5, 2005, operated a metal pressure-type product manufacturing business with the trade name "B precision." Around April 2007, the plaintiff entered into a construction contract with CCCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CCCC") on the ground that the BBP factory was newly constructed on the ground of OOOOOO No. 114-8 (hereinafter referred to as "the construction of this case")," and "BC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case") upon receipt of three copies of the tax invoice of OCCC Co., Ltd. concerning the construction of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the above tax invoice of this case") and filed a tax invoice of 2000 won including value-added tax on the input tax amount subject to deduction."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice fromCCC, which actually completed the construction of the instant construction, and thus, cannot be deemed as constituting a false tax invoice. Even if the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact, the Plaintiff did not know of it, and did not know that there was any negligence. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) The fact that a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer subject to value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared in a false way without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and thus, the tax office’s substantial proof of whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice is disputed. A taxpayer who is easy to present books and documentary evidence as to the fact that the taxpayer actually traded with a supplier as claimed in the tax invoice, need to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

In addition, a tax invoice shall be issued by an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed to be a person who actually receives goods or services or who actually performs transactions of supplying goods or services to a supplier rather than a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

B) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the above evidence and evidence Nos. 5 and No. 3 were admitted to the construction site at the construction site. In other words, CCTV is found to require a construction business license and that it was ordered as a result of a tax investigation by the Central Tax Office, and the Plaintiff’s actual construction work site is not sufficient to receive 3-4% of the construction cost from the business operator who actually performed the construction work at the construction site, and it was confirmed as a material company that lent the construction business license by using documents necessary for the construction permit and the seal impression of the head of the Tong and the head of the Tong at the construction site. ② The construction cost deposited into the account in the name of the CC-related account at the construction site was not used by CC, but rather used by CC-related employees at the construction site. ③ The Plaintiff also received a change of the construction cost under the name of CC-related construction contractor on the date it was issued to 200,000 among the construction work site under the name of the Plaintiff and the 2CC-related construction contractor.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice either knew the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the said name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277,

B) In light of the above, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was not aware that the actual contractor of the instant construction was not CCC, and that there was no negligence due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not keep documents related to the construction work received from CCC and did not completely associate with the name of the employees who had been stationed at the construction site, and the Plaintiff did not directly use part of the construction cost to be paid to CCC as the equipment rental fee, etc., even though it appears that there was no document to obtain confirmation from CCC as to the construction cost of this part, the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff did not know, or did not know, that there was any negligence, even if it was difficult to obtain the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the construction cost was paid to CCC, as a result of an objective verification procedure.

3. Conclusion

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