service contract. The preparation of this service contract shall be as specified in the following table:

3) BB on June 4, 2012, with the Plaintiff’s account, 400 million won in the name of the price for the fence rearrangement project of this case.

The Plaintiff wired KRW 18 million to the account under the name of HH, a representative director of CCC, 20 million on the same day.

BB wired KRW 64 million to the Plaintiff’s account on July 3, 2012.

The Plaintiff wired KRW 253 million in the name of the cost of the rearrangement project, and the Plaintiff’s account on the same day.

Ro 230,000,000 won was remitted.

4) The CCC is a output tax amount without an input tax amount during the first taxable period of value added tax in 2012.

Value-added tax was reported with a total of KRW 350 million,000,000,000,000 for 2012

There is no report on total income tax for the 2012 year by the representative director and HH's 2012.

5) With respect to the instant case, CCC in the course of the Defendant’s tax investigation against the Plaintiff

FF, which is related to DD, did not submit any material about DD projects, and FF, which is "field"

In addition to photographs, service contracts, etc., DDD actually performed the instant commercial building maintenance project.

Submission of a certificate to the effect that it does not have any documents and evidence to be objectively confirmed;

was made.

6) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s place of business 50, Dog-ro (Odong andO building) in OO city, O city, as its place of business.

This is the same place as the place of business of GG Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff is the place of business.

not have physical facilities, such as telephone.

7) KK is serving as a director of BB, and at the time of incorporation of the Plaintiff, from May 14, 2012 to May 5, 2013, 2013.

3. Until April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff’s representative director was in office, and the Defendant’s office was related to the instant case.

A tax investigation shall be conducted on and after May 2012 (BB representative director and the plaintiff's actual director) from the beginning of May 2012.

JJ, the operator of the instant commercial building maintenance project, directly conducted the instant commercial building maintenance project, and on the land of this case

The fence shall be installed before the LL Construction and shall be reinforced by the MM Construction.

However, the Plaintiff and CCC and NN did not undertake the fence maintenance project. The Plaintiff and CCC and NN

The fact that the service contract for the commercial maintenance project or this fence maintenance project has been entered into is the fact.

There is no fact that CCC and DD provided services for the project. The Plaintiff did not do so.

Transfer of money from BB to the improvement project of commercial buildings or the improvement project of this fence;

It was not known as to the details of remittance to CCC and DD, but it was also ordered by JJJ.

I stated to the effect that NN will be inferred to one day.

8) On the other hand, according to the image of the photograph taken around the instant land around May 2012, at the time, at the time.

The surrounding areas of the instant land are installed with fences and the removal of a part of the street store started.

It seems that it appears that it is.

9) On July 26, 2016, KK submitted a written application for coal to this court. The contents of the above written application for coal are “self-determination.”

Any statement made by the Defendant in the course of this investigation is false, and the Plaintiff’s objection is between CCC and DD.

The service contract for the commercial building maintenance project or this fence maintenance project was concluded, and CCC and this contract were concluded.

DD is a true fact that it provides services in accordance with the above service contract.

10) As the Plaintiff did not pay the value-added tax following the instant disposition, the Defendant on February 6, 2016.

KK designated KK as the second taxpayer for the amount of delinquent tax, and notified it; and

KK has filed an objection on March 7, 2016 against it, but the Defendant filed an objection on April 25, 2016.

The objection was dismissed.

11) PP, upon submitting an application for coal to this court on July 15, 2016, submitted the service contract dated June 11, 2012

The second chapter was attached, and each of the above service contracts is between PPP and AD and CCC.

The service contract shall be concluded with the amount of KRW 140 million and KRW 290 million with respect to the business of arranging commercial buildings.

It is the content that it had been.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 and Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11

Statements, Videos, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false is, in principle, a taxation officer.

Since there is a defendant who is the defendant, the defendant shall have direct evidence or all the circumstances.

on the basis of the falsity that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction.

It must be proved to the extent that the defendant is reasonably acceptable.

If a substantial degree of proof has been made, the tax invoice is not false and shall not be asserted.

(1) The plaintiff, who is a taxpayer and is also liable to pay for the illegality of the disposition, shall also present relevant evidence and materials.

Considering that it is easy position, it is necessary to prove that it conforms to his or her argument.

Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192 Decided September 26, 1997; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du16406 Decided April 14, 2006

On the other hand, administrative trials are not bound by the prosecutor's disposition of non-prosecution.

The free evaluation of evidence may sufficiently recognize the facts opposed thereto with the free evaluation of evidence (Supreme Court Decision 1987.

See Supreme Court Decision 87Nu493 delivered on October 26, 199

2) In the instant case:

According to the record of Gap evidence No. 6, the defendant JJ, the actual representative director of plaintiff and plaintiff, of the plaintiff in this case

In the case of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act with a statement of receipt of a processed tax invoice

The prosecutor in charge of the National Prosecutors' Office located in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on December 29, 2014 and the Plaintiff.

J. A non-prosecution disposition is deemed to be a non-prosecution disposition against J, but the facts and the prior facts of the recognition.

The following circumstances, i.e., (i) the content of the service subject to the contract and the timing and method of payment, etc. in the instant service contract, which are revealed by the evidence of this case, are specific:

without a certificate of corporate seal impression, etc., and the plaintiff and BB

The service contract for the instant shopping district rearrangement project (No. 1-4) and June 30, 2012

The time order of the date of preparation of the sales tax invoice is changed later (a trade service contract is concluded;

Since service charges will be paid after the date of the occurrence of the service contract, the date of the preparation of the tax invoice;

It should be the earlier date, and the date of preparation of the above service contract shall be July 2012.

2. The date of the preparation of the above sales tax invoice is the date of June 30, 2012, and it is difficult to believe it as it is.

(2) Even if the service contract of this case is true, for the purpose of the service contract of this case

The use of this case seems to require a relatively long period of time to provide calendars.

The full amount of service payment under the instant service contract is paid on the date of preparation of the calendar contract or on the following day;

It is extremely different from the usual payment method for the provision of service, and it is difficult to believe it as it is;

③ At the time of the preparation of the service contract of this case, KK, which was the representative director of the Plaintiff, was the Defendant’s tax investigation division

under the service contract of this case between the plaintiff, BB, CCC, and DD

There is no fact that services have been provided or received in relation thereto," and "Sechohyeong 2, 2012"

From BB’s representative director and the Plaintiff’s actual operator, JJ’s direction) the instant commercial building maintenance

The project was directly conducted, and fences on the land of this case have been installed since 00 years ago.

No additional statement was made to the effect that “no additional statement was made”, and the above statement was made.

The contents of the statement, attitudes, and the motion picture of the motion picture taken around the land of this case around May 2012.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff seems to have credibility, the plaintiff seems to have been credibility.

From April 2012, it was invested in the construction site of the instant land and entered into a service contract with the actual business operator around April 2012

(1) Around May 2012, the date of commencement of the relocation and removal pursuant to the above service agreement and around July 2012

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion was completed (No. 8 of the complaint of this case).

The date of establishment ( May 14, 2012) and the date of the preparation of the instant tax invoice does not meet all the requirements;

Rather, the above statement of KK and the image of the photograph taken around the land of this case around May 2012.

(5) On July 26, 2016, while the lawsuit in this case was pending, KK filed an application for coal with this court on July 26, 2016.

In the course of tax investigation, the defendant reversed the above statement, but the defendant's delinquent tax amount

As for the reversal of the statement made after the designation of KK as the secondary taxpayer and the notice of payment was given, it is difficult to believe the reversal statement as it is, and 6 July 15, 2016, by the PPP as the secondary taxpayer.

The service contract submitted on June 11, 2012 is in fact at the bottom of the contractor’s entry in the main text.

Services are inconsistent with the entries of the contractor who signed and sealed, and in the case of some services contracts:

The remuneration amount is larger than the value of supply on the purchase tax invoice for the plaintiff, and the preparation thereof.

Now is the date of preparation on some purchase tax invoices (Plaintiffs) more than the date of preparation on the purchase tax invoice

The date of preparation of purchase tax invoices received from DD is July 3, 2012), and in the case of CCC, the Plaintiff

In the case of re-subcontracting the fence rearrangement project of this case, the above project is not the project.

In other words, it seems that the subcontracting cannot be permitted, and it is extremely difficult to believe in any one mother.

(7) The Plaintiff, BB, CCC, and DD correspond to the entry of the instant tax invoice.

failure to submit all objective evidence that there was a reverse supply

In full view of the fact that the tax invoice of this case is entered, actual services consistent with the entry of this case.

As it is difficult to view that there exists a supply act, the tax invoice of this case is received without actual transaction price.

The disposition of this case, which deemed a false tax invoice, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing this is legitimate.

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

On May 15, 2014, the judgment revoking the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 36,69,600, which was imposed against the plaintiff on May 15, 2012 by the defendant of the Gu office.

A. The plaintiff was established on May 14, 2012 and operated a business facility and management business as its main business, 201. 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 5 . 2. 1 . 5 . 2. 2. 1 . 5 . 2. 2. 3 . 1 . 2. 5 . 20 . . 20 . 1 . 3. 20 . 5 . 20 . . 30 . 20 . . 1 . 5 . 206 . . 4 . . 20 . 5 - 1 . 20 . 36 . 1 . 5 . 201 . 5 . 201 . 206 . 5 . 201 . 3 . 5 . 201 . . . 206 . . . 5 . 206 . . .

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

EEE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EEE”) purchased 12-1 p.m. OO-dong 1 from 12-1 to 1917m.4m. (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) but concluded a service contract with BB to adjust the instant land into a site where building could be newly built by resolving the instant land between BB and BB, and the Plaintiff received the above service from CCC and DD to divide the said service into fence rearrangement and street store rearrangement. In other words, since the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with the actual business operator around February 4, 2012, and entered into the said service contract with the actual business operator around May 2012, the Plaintiff provided DB with the instant service on the premise that DB had been subject to removal and removal of the instant services under the instant service contract, and the Plaintiff provided DB on the premise that DB had to complete the instant service contract with DB on May 21, 2012.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) EE completes the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of April 27, 2012 with respect to the instant land on April 30, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the purchase and sale as of April 27, 2012, and on March 13, 2014, the registration of ownership preservation is also completed on the instant land with the fourth and

2) On April 12, 2012, EE drafted a service contract between BB and BB on the preparation for the commencement of the instant land, the completion of construction, restoration to the original state, and maintenance and management of the project site (the maintenance of the fence around the snow fence, the relocation and restoration to the original state after the completion of construction). BB made a service contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on June 4, 2012 on the preparation for the commencement of the instant land, the maintenance of the fence, and the restoration to the original state (hereinafter “the instant service”). The Plaintiff prepared the service contract between CCC and the service contract of this case on June 4, 2012 on the maintenance of the street commercial building on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant service contract”). There was no agreement between DD and DD on the maintenance of the fence on June 4, 2012 on the instant project.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.