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

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on September 15, 200 and engaged in real estate development and lease business.

B. In 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) equivalent to the aggregate of the supply values from the relevant P Construction (hereinafter “P Construction”) during the two taxable periods of value-added tax, and filed a return on the refund of value-added tax with the Defendant, including the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On January 3, 2011, the Defendant rejected the application for refund of value-added tax, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was not a real transaction, and accordingly, rejected the application for refund of value-added tax, while determining and notifying the amount of value-added tax 00 won (additional tax such as underreporting) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 26, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 26, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 24, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On February 10, 209, the Plaintiff acquired YY 915-9 and 3 lots of land in the village of Macheon-si, and entered into a contract with O Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O engineering”) to construct a factory building on the above land and paid 000 won as construction cost, but failed to complete the scheduled factory building as it was impossible for O engineering. On March 2, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for construction cost of 00 won for the remainder of the construction and the above new construction (such as electricity and printing panel and landscape construction) and the construction cost of YY 200 (hereinafter “YY”) under the premise that the construction was directly executed and the remainder of the construction, and the Plaintiff was supplied with the construction cost of 20 years under the premise that the construction cost of the instant construction was not immediately paid to 10 years, and the Plaintiff was supplied with the construction cost of 20 years under the premise that it was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) On June 21, 2008, △ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△), entered into a contract with the O engineering to make full payments within 15 days of completion with respect to the construction of a new construction of a factory on the ground (hereinafter referred to as the “new construction of the instant land”) on the land located in Macheon-si (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) located in Macheon-si. June 24, 2008; June 31, 2008; the scheduled completion date of the completion of the construction; the construction cost of August 31, 2008; the advance payment of KRW 00; and the remainder of the construction amount of KRW 15 days after completion.

2) On September 1, 2008, the completion date of the above completion date of construction works, the Plaintiff transferred the status of a contractor under the said contract from △△△△, and on September 8, 2008, the Plaintiff paid 00 won to the between ON personnel in the form of a contract deposit, as the contract deposit, in addition to the aforementioned advance payment, as the contract deposit, and the construction cost, as the construction cost, in January 23, 2009, 200 won in March 27, 2009, and April 10, 2009. However, O engineering did not complete the new construction works of this case.

3) Meanwhile, YY trillion won was subcontracted for electrical construction among the new construction works in the instant case from O engineering, and YA had completed the above electricity and gllll construction works, etc. around early 2009, and YA did not receive the payment from O engineering. Accordingly, on April 10, 2009 and July 2, 2009, YA received a provisional attachment and provisional injunction order from the court as the preserved claim, and completed the registration of provisional attachment and provisional injunction on the instant land.

4) The term “contract for a construction project subcontract” written between the Plaintiff and XX Construction was written on March 2, 2010, stating that a contract for the construction project with the content of the start date on March 2, 2010 for the panel and ancillary facilities work among the new construction project in the instant case; June 30, 2010; June 30, 2000 won for the construction work; and payment of progress payment (in principle, a separate consultation on value-added tax) once a month for progress payment (the end of the 25th of each month and the 10th of the following month; if the funds are not sufficient, a lump-sum payment for a financial loan after completion) is entered into.

5) On August 23, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land’s ground factory building, and on May 9, 201, sold the instant land and factory building to Nonparty KimB for KRW 000,000, and deposited KRW 000 with the corporate account of XX Construction on May 12, 2011. Meanwhile, the instant construction deposited KRW 000,000,000, and KRW 000,000,000,000, respectively, to GoA on the same day.

6) Article XX construction-related matters

A) ParkCC accepted the GATT construction on January 19, 2010 and became the representative director of XX construction. Employees of XX construction are two (excluding the representative director ParkCC). On-site management director’s duties and external business duties were taken place.

B) From March 2010 to July 2010, 2010, construction performed apartment construction in Chungcheongnam-do; from April 2010 to June 2010, in the Gyeonggi-si, electric power resource housing construction was conducted in Gwangju-si; one of the construction staff members at the pertinent construction site (DD); and the said Gwangju-si construction site was under the overall control of ParkCC.

C) At the time, PEE temporarily worked in XX Construction had overall control over the new construction site of this case, and employees, such as ParkCC, did not directly advocate the new construction site of this case. Meanwhile, PE was an employee of △△ General Construction at the time, and did not receive benefits from XX Construction.

D) The purchase amount of LW construction’s LW 2010 and 2010 on the return of value-added tax is approximately KRW 000,000. All of them are the purchase amount related to the above construction site and Gwangju Construction site, and there is no amount of purchase relating to the new construction site of this case.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 26 through 31, 36 through 39, 42, 43, and 44

D. Determination

1) The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. Thus, the defendant must prove the falsity of the tax invoice that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or all the circumstances. However, if the defendant proves considerable degree of proof as to this point to the extent that he reasonably acceptable, it is necessary for the taxpayer who is easy to present evidence and materials related to the fact that there is an actual transaction corresponding to the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

2) In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, it can be sufficiently confirmed that there was no real transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice. The testimony of the Plaintiff and the witness ParkCC and GoA submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to reverse the said recognition, and there is no counter-proof. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the construction cost for the instant newly-built construction that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff reaches KRW 000, and there is no content of purchase of materials, etc. related to the instant newly-built construction in the Value-Added Tax Return for the last 1, 2010 and the second 2, 2010 of the XX Construction. (In contrast, there is no evidence to deem that the construction actually provided a construction equivalent to the said construction cost, such as construction-related account books and labor cost payment, etc. (i.e., the current construction site implemented during the same period and purchase details related to the Gwangju Construction site).

B) The Plaintiff asserted that the GATT construction was subcontracted to the high-level A and the Y lighting. However, the construction did not submit a subcontract agreement, and the high-level A and the Y lighting had not received a purchase tax invoice from the high-level A and the Y lighting. In addition, the high-level A and the Y lighting had already completed their construction services for the instant new construction works subcontracted by O engineering around early 2009.

C) The employees of XX Construction (three persons, including the representative Director ParkCC), managed the construction site and the construction site of Gwangju in the first and second taxable periods of 2010, and managed the new construction work of this case. In addition, the new construction work of this case was not directly involved in the new construction work of this case, and the new construction work of this case was controlled by GoE, not the staff of XX construction.

D) The fact that GATT construction commenced without receiving down payment and did not receive any payment until the completion of the construction, and that it did not take any measures for securing claims for a considerable period of time after the completion of the construction is very exceptional in light of the general transaction practices.

E) The corporate passbook in XX Construction was opened immediately before the Plaintiff pays KRW 000, and most of the money was immediately paid to the Plaintiff, which appears to be a financial transaction for the purpose of pretending a normal transaction.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.