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

A. In the first instance judgment, approximately KRW 221,545,00, " approximately KRW 221,545,000" in the 3th 12-13th 2nd 13th 13th 2th 13th 2th 13th 13th 2th 13th 13th 2th 13th 1,545,000, which was determined by the National Tax Tribunal, is the amount recognized separately by the Defendant based on the Plaintiff’s additional assessment amount during the said re-examination.

(b) To change "17,753,541 won" in 117,753,540 won (a fraction less than ten won shall be rounded off pursuant to Article 47 (1) of the Management of the National Funds Act; hereinafter the same shall apply), "95,718,708 won" in the same parallel in the first instance judgment, "95,718,700 won" in the same parallel in the second instance judgment, and "64,485,687 won" in the 15 parallel in the same parallel in the second instance judgment, into "64,485,680 won", respectively;

(c) To correct the 4th sentence of the judgment of the first instance as the "field chief", and 5th page 21 (Evidence 8) as the "field chief", respectively; and

D. Then, “The fact that there is no objective material” in the 6th 19th 19th 19th 19th 6th 6th 19th 6th 6th 19th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 4th 7th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 196

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap3688 ( November 30, 2007)]

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

A. The Plaintiff, which was established around June 29, 192 and engaged in specialized construction business (short-term construction business and facility business), was directly executed or sub-subcontracted upon receiving a subcontract from a general construction company.

B. From January 1, 1999 to February 2, 2002, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 1,212,930,422 (hereinafter “tax invoice of this case”) from ○ Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○”) and reported and paid the corporate tax calculated by including the value of value-added tax computed by deducting the input tax amount and the value of the supply in deductible expenses.

C. The Defendant received from the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office a notice of taxation data that ○○ issued the instant tax invoice on the basis of the result of the tax investigation with respect to ○○○○○, without real transaction. Around February 2004, the Defendant conducted a periodic investigation with respect to the Plaintiff’s corporate tax and paid KRW 1,174,592,973 (hereinafter “the instant purchase price”) to Kim○○○, but decided that the Plaintiff received only the tax invoice from ○○○. On March 3, 2004, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff KRW 92,787,430 on the aggregate of corporate tax for 1998-202 and the value-added tax for 148,827,190 on the aggregate of the value-added tax for 199 and 202.

D. Since then, the Defendant received an audit and cadastral record from the Commissioner of the National Tax Service that, although there was no objective evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had been provided with construction services from Kim○○, only the actual supplier recognized it as another purchase price and included it in deductible expenses. On October 25, 2004 through November 30, 2004, the Defendant denied the instant purchase price as deductible expenses, and issued an additional disposition on April 1, 2005, imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 147,31,930 as corporate tax for the year 1999, KRW 120,340,80 as corporate tax for the year 200, KRW 75,561,90 as tax for the year 201, and KRW 161,386,860 as tax for the year 202 (hereinafter “original disposition”).

E. On April 19, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on April 19, 2005. On October 27, 2006, the National Tax Tribunal reviewed whether KRW 731,107,194, out of the supply price of the instant tax invoice, was actually traded, and KRW 233,730,023, which was paid to ○○ households, were purchased through a derivative transaction, and corrected the tax base and tax amount, and decided to dismiss the remainder of the appeal.

F. Accordingly, the defendant conducted a reinvestigation on November 13, 2006 to April 5, 2007, and determined that approximately KRW 36,720,000 of the supply price of the tax invoice of this case and approximately KRW 221,545,00 of the purchase price due to an over-the-counter transaction and KRW 221,5,00 of the purchase price shall be recognized as the actual purchase price based on financial data, etc., and on April 17, 2007, the initial disposition of this case was reduced to KRW 117,753,541 of the corporate tax of 1999, KRW 95,718,708 of the corporate tax of 200, KRW 64,485,687 of the corporate tax of 201, and corporate tax of KRW 80,807,930 of the corporate tax of 202 (hereinafter the disposition of this case was imposed).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 13 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was awarded a sub-subcontract to Kim ○, a specialized constructor, the Korea National Housing Corporation, etc., for the 1999-2002 subcontracted seven projects. At the time, the Plaintiff was prohibited from sub-subcontracting under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and thus, the Plaintiff’s director and the head of the field office was performing the construction work directly. Kim ○ purchased construction materials necessary therefor from ○○○, while actually performing the said construction work, and paid the said amount to KRW 1,351,400,000 for the construction cost received from the Plaintiff. However, from ○○○, the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the recipient of the construction materials as if the Plaintiff directly purchased the construction materials.

Therefore, since the tax invoice of this case is only different from the actual transaction, the price of supply should be included in the loss as the purchase price, the disposition of this case, which recognizes only a part of the supply price as the loss, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of a corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided for in this Act.

(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated or spent in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.

(3) Matters necessary for the scope and types of losses under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

Losses under the provisions of Article 19 (1) of the Act shall be those under the provisions of the following subparagraphs, except as otherwise prescribed by the Act and this Decree:

1. The purchase value of raw materials of commodities or manufactured goods sold (excluding purchase overcharge amounts and purchase discount amounts under corporate accounting standards) and incidental expenses;

3. Personnel expenses;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that ○○○ regional tax office’s tax investigation, Defendant’s two-way tax investigation, and a request for national tax trial that he actually purchased and received construction materials from the Plaintiff. Of Chapter 52, 30 Chapter 731,107,194 of the instant tax invoice was received by the Plaintiff according to the actual transaction, and the remainder of Chapter 22 Chapter 481,823,229 of the instant tax invoice was received from ○○○ and disposed of the purchase price by the Plaintiff while performing other construction works. Of the above 22 Chapter 22 Chapter 481,823,229, the Plaintiff changed the grounds for appeal that only 235,363,206 won was purely processed and the remainder was paid for the material price and other expenses. In this case, the subcontractor asserts that 300 was actually received through the actual transaction.

(2) The Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for 4,607,680,000 won in total for 8 construction works by the Korea National Housing Corporation, etc. from 1999 to 2002, and transferred 34,720,000 won in total to ○○’s deposit account during the same period. Kim○ was deemed to have been paid a total of 34,260,000 won in total by the Plaintiff, since it was deemed to have been a shareholder, etc. holding 20% of the Plaintiff’s shares around this time.

(3) During the above period, approximately KRW 2,909,440,000 was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s deposit account, but there was no objective evidence suggesting that approximately KRW 1,326,400,000 was actually delivered to Kim ○○ in fact, claiming that the Plaintiff paid the construction payment of the re-subcontract to Kim○○.

(4) On April 2007, the representative director of the Plaintiff prepared and submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation that the tax invoice of approximately KRW 36,720,000 among the instant tax invoices was actually traded in the course of re-audit by the Defendant according to the decision of the National Tax Tribunal on April 2007, and the remainder was false tax invoices through the processing transaction (Evidence A8), and the Defendant subsequently corrected the original disposition by recognizing the purchase price of approximately KRW 36,720,00 as deductible expenses, by taking account of such written confirmation and relevant financial transaction data submitted by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 2, 3, and 8, Eul 5 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings (at least evidence: Gap 5, 7, and 9)

D. Determination

In a case where a taxpayer asserts that some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are not actual expenses, the use of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment are proved to be false, and that there was another expense disbursement equivalent to the same amount when the taxpayer did not incur the expenses according to the details of the report, the taxpayer needs to prove that it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as the account books and evidence on the specific expense spending facts, regarding the existence and amount of the reported expenses and other expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2004Du14168, Jun. 10, 2005).

In light of these legal principles, this case is examined.

As acknowledged earlier, ○○○ issuing the instant tax invoice was accused of the fact that most of the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice under a processing transaction, and there is no objective data to deem that the Plaintiff was actually paid the price if the Plaintiff excluded part of the supply price, and there is no objective data to support that the Plaintiff paid the construction price to the sub-contractor Kim ○. In light of the following, it is reasonable to deem that the portion of the instant tax invoice, other than the portion for which the Defendant recognized the supply price as deductible expenses in the course of re-audit correction, is a false tax invoice received without real transactions. In addition to the evidence rejected earlier, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to the relevant

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful, and there is no violation of law as asserted by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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