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

A. On November 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the construction of landscaping facilities from ○○ District Co., Ltd., the original office company, and re-subcontracted a part of the construction work to D Construction (the opening date, January 10, 2006, and the representative re-subcontracted).

B. On November 13, 2007, the Plaintiff obtained a subcontract from BB Construction Co., Ltd., the principal contractor, and re-subcontracted a part of the construction work to D Construction.

C. On December 6, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with CCC Co., Ltd., the prime contractor company, and re-subcontracted a part of the construction work to DD Construction.

D. The Plaintiff subcontracted the construction of landscaping facilities to D Construction on December 12, 2007, among the construction works for the Dapo Park Maintenance Project that was contracted by Kimpo-si in Kimpo-si.

E. ParkE is the actual representative of DD Construction, and it was registered as a business operator (the opening date of business January 1, 2008) with the trade name of "GG&C" that is "G&C", while continuing the above four construction subcontracted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter "the instant construction") and reporting the closure of DD construction on December 31, 2007 and reporting the closure of D construction on January 1, 2008 as the representative of the largest FF under the name of the Plaintiff.

F. The Plaintiff received a total of four tax invoices (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) from GG&C in relation to the instant construction works as follows, and received input tax deduction at the time of preliminary return for the first period of value-added tax in 2008.

G. The Defendant, on August 1, 2009, did not deduct input tax amount on the ground that the supplier of the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, and corrected and imposed tax amounting to KRW 59,752,970 for the first term of August 1, 2008, and corporate tax amounting to KRW 7,415,360 for the year 208 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. On September 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial due to an objection to the disposition of the instant case, but was dismissed on December 15, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 13 (including each number)

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff principal

The Plaintiff was aware of the representative of DD Construction as a member of adjustment, GG&C, and the representative of GG&C, and the actual representative of DD Construction, GG&C, and the actual representative of DG&C, without knowledge that DD construction and DG&C, received the instant tax invoice from the GG&C, which succeeded to the instant construction of DD construction, and thus, the instant disposition should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) As a result of the tax investigation conducted on the GG&C from October 13, 2008 to November 14, 2008, the head of the Ansan Tax Office, the representative of the business registration, was only the nominal name holder, and the actual representative was found to be ParkE.

2) From January 1, 2008 to November 19, 2008, Park E-E filed a complaint with the competent District Prosecutors' Office located in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office by the head of the Ansan District Tax Office, on the grounds of the suspicion of issuing and delivering KRW 937,79,00 in the aggregate of 22 processed tax invoices (including false) tax invoices in the name of the largest FF and seven enterprises, including the construction of housing saves and construction of housing saves, without supplying goods or services in the name of the largest F.

3) The instant tax invoice is written as the lowestF by the supplier, but the actual supplier is E.

4) The Plaintiff did not prepare a written contract for D Construction or GG&C; and the Plaintiff and DD Construction, GG&C; “D Construction transfers all rights and obligations relating to the instant construction to GG&C;” in relation to the instant construction.”

5) The instant tax invoice is commonly written only as “facilities” in the item column, and its standard, quantity, and unit price column are official columns.

6) Most of the instant construction was conducted by DD Construction in 2007, and the amount of the instant tax invoice was also included in the service supplied by DD Construction.

7) The Plaintiff remitted 50,000,000 won on November 29, 2007, and 30,000,000 won on December 12, 2007, respectively, to the account in the name of the adjusted commissioner, who is the representative of DD Construction, and delivered on November 30, 207, the sum of face value of 16,720,000 won on December 30, 2007.

8) ParkE testified in this Court that “D Construction, GG&C; the actual representative of ParkE was the Plaintiff Company at the time of the contract, and the Plaintiff Company was aware of it.”

9) The Plaintiff also prepared and submitted a written request for pre-assessment review (Evidence No. 6) to the effect that “GG&C at the time of receiving the instant tax invoice, the representative of GG&C, is merely nominal, and the Plaintiff was also aware that the real owner is GG&C.” in relation to the instant disposition.

[Reasons for Recognition] 5 to 11 evidence of Gap, Eul 3, 4, 5, and 6 (each number of evidence), the testimony of Gao E and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice and that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice. The person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997; 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002

As shown in the above facts, in full view of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the amount of the instant construction project is not less than KRW 300 million, but the construction contract was not prepared, ② most of the instant construction project was supplied by DD Construction in 2007, ③ the maximum FF, which is a supplier of the instant tax invoice, is merely a nominal supplier, ④ the actual supplier of the instant tax invoice was notified in advance to the Plaintiff’s representative, etc., ④ the actual supplier of the instant tax invoice was Park EE; ⑤ the Plaintiff Company was aware of the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier under the tax invoice at the time of receiving the instant tax invoice. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the instant tax invoice was not true, is not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

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