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

The imposition of value-added tax by ○○○○○○, the imposition of value-added tax by ○○○○ for the second period of two years in 2011, the imposition of 2011, the notice of change in income amount for the business year 201 (Reversion: ○○, Income Amount: ○○○, and Income Amount) and the imposition of ○○○○○ on December 2, 2013, respectively, shall be revoked.

This court's reasoning is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and addition of the judgment like Paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The ○ 2nd 10th 2nd 10th 2nd 10th 2nd 13th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd

The "sales cost" in the last two pages of the tax invoice is calculated as "value of supply in the tax invoice of this case".

The ○ 6th parallel 1 to 8th parallels are as follows:

In such a case, the Plaintiff shall submit materials from other suppliers that are not suppliers under the tax invoice; or

The plaintiff must prove that he was supplied with labor and paid expenses for the instant construction work.

In relation to the instant construction project, other suppliers shall bear the costs corresponding to the instant tax invoice.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that materials, expenses, labor expenses, etc. were actually paid.

① Even if the Plaintiff, after being awarded a contract for the instant construction, re-subcontracted to BB Construction to ○○○○○, completed the construction and disbursed the amount equivalent to the contract amount, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, 12 construction works other than the instant construction works were conducted during the business year 2011. As long as the Plaintiff’s data on construction expenses and tax invoices submitted are classified by construction, and cannot be selected and paid for the instant construction expenses corresponding to the instant tax invoice, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff’s expenses equivalent to the value of supply under the instant tax invoice are related to the expenses that were disbursed in connection with the instant construction, solely on the basis of the entries in Gap’s 1 through 5, 16 through 20, 22, 25, 27 evidence No. 26, and evidence No. 1

② From March 2011 to December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff and 11 others working at the construction site of this case.

Based on the direct payment of ○○○○○○ Won as daily labor cost, A submitted the evidence No. 26-1 through 10 (each monthly wage statement), and No. 27 (Register of National Pension Subscribers). However, as seen earlier, these evidence cannot be readily concluded as a cost corresponding to the value of supply under the instant tax invoice. Furthermore, even if the evidence No. 14 was stated in the evidence No. 14, the fact of departure from the Republic of Korea can be acknowledged even during the period in which the Plaintiff asserted that he/she paid labor cost. As such, these evidence can be acknowledged as a fact of departure from the Republic of Korea even during the period in which the Plaintiff claimed that he/she paid labor cost.

It is insufficient to be the basis for the payment of labor cost to the above workers.

③ Although the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-suspect in a suspected violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, this is derived from the reason that the perpetrator, who received false tax invoices from △△ and △ Industry, was not the Plaintiff, and was recognized as having actually purchased the same as the tax invoices or as having actually purchased the tax invoices from other suppliers.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, it is insufficient to recognize that materials and labor equivalent to the value of supply stated in the tax invoice of this case were supplied, as long as the Plaintiff completed the construction of this case, it is clear that the expenses required therefor have been disbursed. Therefore, such expenses should be recognized by standard expense rate or simple expense rate estimation method.

B. Determination

A single taxable object may be mixed with on-site investigation and estimated investigation, and the tax base amount shall be determined.

It is not a taxation method recognized by the relevant laws such as Corporate Tax Act (Supreme Court Decision 7 July 2007).

26. See Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14561 Decided January 26, 2005)

In case of determining the tax base and tax amount on income, such income amount different from the method of determining the total deductible expenses.

Only the deductible expenses corresponding to this portion cannot be calculated and deducted by means of the estimation investigation rather than the on-site investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du328, Apr. 10, 1998).

In light of the above legal principles, among the sales from completion of the instant construction claimed by the Plaintiff

As part of the cost corresponding to the tax invoice of this case, the tax base cannot be determined by calculating and deducting only the value of supply on the tax invoice of this case (i.e., 00 won + 000 won + 000 won) by means of an estimate investigation. The Plaintiff’s assertion

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.