2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,035,50 for the first term of 200, value-added tax of KRW 1,979,00 for the second term of 200, value-added tax of KRW 4,328,480 for the second term of 201, KRW 7,806,30 for the first term of 200, and KRW 11,910,640 for the global income tax of KRW 200 for the second term of 200.

A. The Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur from April 14, 1987 to ○○-○○○○○○, Seoul, with the trade name of “○○ Engineering”, who was engaged in the production of advertisements, the exploration of water supply and drainage systems, and the surveying business, and was closed on May 31, 2002.

B. The Plaintiff received each tax invoice of KRW 17,194,00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from ○○ Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction Machinery”) during the second half of 2001 from the supply value of KRW 5,00,000, and KRW 10,000,000 during the second half of 200, from ○○ Transportation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Transportation”) for the supply value of KRW 6,90,000 during the second half of 2001 from ○○ Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Construction Machinery”) and included in the necessary expenses after deducting the amount of tax and the supply value as value-added tax and the global income tax return.

C. On May 3, 2005, the Defendant issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on May 3, 2005, taking into account the processing tax invoice of this case, which the head of ○○ Tax Office notified by the head of ○○○○○○○ branch of ○○ Transportation as to ○○ Transportation, and the processing tax invoice received by the head of △△△ to avoid purchase in the course of each investigation on ○ Construction Machinery without real transaction, and issued an input tax amount of KRW 40,594,00,00 for the supply value, and then deducted the input tax amount of KRW 1,035,50,000 for the first period of 200, value-added tax of KRW 1,979,00 for the second period of 200, value-added tax of KRW 4,328,480 for the second period of 20, global income tax of KRW 7,806,300 for the year 200, global income tax of KRW 110,640.

D. The plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal on January 6, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the above request on June 7, 2006.

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-4--each 1,2, Gap 23-1-5, Eul 1-1-3, Eul 2-1, 2-2;

B 3, B 9-1, 2, B 10-1 to 3, B 11-1,2, B 12, B 14-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On November 27, 1999, the Plaintiff was awarded a construction survey on the 13 construction sections of the Yong-dong Highway from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Company”) and was supplied with survey equipment transport services during the 1st and the 2nd period from ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. on November 27, 199. On May 22, 2001, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for the construction survey on the 4-lane expansion of the road between ○○○ and Pacific, and was supplied with survey equipment transport services during the 2nd period of 2001 from ○○ Transportation, and was issued a part of the instant tax invoice on the basis that each site price was settled in cash in consideration of the circumstances. The instant tax invoice was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff received part of the instant tax invoice without payment on the subcontracted Construction Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., ○○ Construction, ○○ Construction, and △ Construction Co., Ltd., and received part of the instant tax invoice.

(2) The Plaintiff used 27,56,916 won as welfare expenses at the time of filing an income tax return in 2001, and 48,656,916 won, including the total of 21,10,000 won for daily work spent as actual personnel expenses, and the total of 21,10,000 won for daily work spent as actual personnel expenses, but not reflected in necessary expenses. The above amount of expenditure can be recognized by the Plaintiff’s tax return details for withholding tax in 2001 and credit card sales slips, etc., and thus, the portion of global income tax 11,910,640 won for year 201 among the instant disposition is unjust.

(b) Related statutes;

The entry in the attached Form shall be as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Determination criteria

The burden of proving that a tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is a tax authority. As such, 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 tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by the taxpayer is proved to have been prepared by the defendant who is the tax authority without real transactions, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost, and if it has been proved that the taxpayer's purpose of use of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment are considerably false, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the account book keeping and evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

(2) Whether the instant tax invoice was false

(A) Facts of recognition

1) As a result of the ○○○○○ Customs Office’s investigation, the pertinent transaction portion among the instant tax invoices is included in the trading list of processed sales to an enterprise that was accused of the ○○ Police Station after confirming that the ○○○○○○○○ Customs Office committed an act based on the data from July 1, 1999 to December 31, 201.

2) On October 2003, 2003, the head of ○○○○○○○, a representative director of ○○○○○○, was present at the ○○○ Tax Base and stated that the pertinent part of the instant tax invoice was issued to the Plaintiff without real transactions.

3) The ○○ Transportation included the pertinent transaction portion among the instant tax invoices in the processed sales transaction list as an enterprise accused at the △ Police Station due to the fact that he/she engaged in the data from August 25, 2001 to June 30, 2003, which is the opening date, through an investigation into the data of the △△ Tax Office’s data.

4) The Plaintiff asserted that the transaction between ○○○ Transportation and ○ Transportation among the instant tax invoice was supplied by the Plaintiff with the service after being dispatched to ○○ Transportation and ○○ Transportation. However, ○○ does not have the details of withholding through ○○ Transportation and ○○ Transportation according to the wage and salary income data status, and the freight vehicles (No. 80, 3200) that the Plaintiff was transferred to ○○○ Transportation are not vehicles belonging to ○○ Transportation or ○ Transportation.

5) The ○○ Construction Machinery is confirmed to have engaged in the act of data from January 1, 2001 to June 30, 2003 through an investigation on the data of the △△ Tax Book and includes the corresponding transaction portion among the instant tax invoice on the processing transaction list as an enterprise accused of the ○○ Police Station. The date of preparation of some of the transaction specifications and deposit slips presented by the Plaintiff, alleging that they are real transactions, is indicated on March 25, 2001 or April 30, 2001, and thus, the pertinent transaction portion in the instant tax invoice is inconsistent with the two-years of 201.

"6) The plaintiff asserted that, among the tax invoice of this case, ○○ Construction Machinery, ○○○, who is the former employee, was in charge of work directly and received a tax invoice from ○○ Construction Machinery, and accordingly, the plaintiff submitted a confirmation document prepared by ○○○○. However, Kim○ was operating a business with the trade name of “E.N.G. during the same taxable period with the Plaintiff’s place of business like the Plaintiff, and received a tax invoice from ○○ Construction Machinery without a real transaction, but did not object to the defendant’s disposition of imposition that was not deducted.” (In the absence of any dispute, there is no ground for recognition, i.e., Gap 2-4-each 2, Gap 7-1-3, Eul 3, Eul 4-1, Eul 5-1, Eul 5-2-1, Eul 5-2-1, Eul 5-1, Eul 5-2-1, Eul 5-1, Eul-1, 6-1, 6-31, 8-1-2-1-1-2, Eul, 31-1-1-1-

(B) Determination

According to the above facts, the tax invoice of this case seems to be all through a processing transaction rather than a real transaction.

(3) Whether the expenditure of welfare expenses and personnel expenses should be reflected in the necessary expenses during 2001

(A) Welfare expenses portion

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4-2 and Gap evidence Nos. 14-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff filed a return of global income tax return for the year 2001 to the account book by external adjustment (in the case of being kept by a qualified professional tax agent). Among the details of the use of credit card submitted by the plaintiff, the amount of use of the card in the name of the plaintiff himself is KRW 13,506,224, and the amount used in the restaurant is KRW 7,163,80, and the amount used in the oil station is KRW 3,625,90, and the credit card amount not verified by the card owner is 5,192,190, and it is difficult to view that some of the card amount was replaced by the account books on the same day due to a simple error in the account classification, and it is difficult to view that some of the card amount was actually generated by the plaintiff's account manager as the expenses incurred by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, and the other evidence No. 10 of the plaintiff No. 1.

(B) Part on personnel expenses

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had already acknowledged the amount of KRW 56,00,00, which is the difference between the amount reported as withholding tax and the amount appropriated in the profit and loss statement as necessary expenses in the investigation of the value-added tax on March 11, 2002, the Plaintiff reported as the account book by external adjustment as a double-type bookkeeping businessman according to the return of global income tax for the year 2001. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s personnel expenses claimed by the Plaintiff were actually paid out solely on the basis of each of the items of evidence No. 15-1, No. 2, No. 16, No. 17-1 through No. 18 through No. 21, and No. 22-1 through No. 3, and there is no evidence to view otherwise.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the instant tax invoice as a processing tax invoice issued without any actual transaction, and excluded the amount of tax on the value of supply from the input tax amount, and did not include the value of supply in the necessary expenses, and did not recognize the portion of welfare expenses and the amount of labor cost payment as necessary expenses

3. Conclusion

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