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

A. On October 1, 2003, the ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Development”) was the contractor for the construction of △△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△△ Construction”), and entered into a subcontract on each part of the construction of reinforced concrete among the new construction works, such as △ Hospital, with regard to (2) April 25, 2007, △△△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△△”) as the contractor for the construction of △△ Construction.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the details of the report and payment of the corporate tax and the value-added tax by ○○ Development and issued and issued a tax invoice in the name of ○○ Development and △△△ in the name of ○○, after the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with respect to the iron bars construction as described in the above paragraph (a) between ○○ Construction and △△ Development by borrowing it in the name of ○○○ Development, and he was paid KRW 891,00,000 in total from 203 to 207 as follows.

C. On August 31, 2009, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 37,638,810 (including the additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), value-added tax of KRW 26,194,50, value-added tax of KRW 55,468,080, value-added tax of February 2004, value-added tax of KRW 654,720, value-added tax of KRW 316,320, value-added tax of February 2005, value-added tax of KRW 316,320, KRW 5,767, value-added tax of KRW 647,640, value-added tax of KRW 207, KRW 2330,400, and KRW 654,720, value-added tax of KRW 205, KRW 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 7-1, Evidence No. 13, Evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Referral and Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while working as the head of the construction site of △ Construction, etc., received benefits from △ Construction, etc. while working as the head of the construction site of △△ Construction, etc., and, at the same time, the Plaintiff recruited and executed the parts of the wooden Construction in charge of the construction project and received only wages therefor, and thus, the Plaintiff did not receive the above 1. A payment from ○○ Development. Nevertheless, each of the dispositions of this case, which the Plaintiff deemed as the actual contractor of the said construction project, should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 9, 11 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, part of Gap evidence Nos. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged. In light of the above evidence, it is difficult to believe that part of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8 and Gap evidence Nos. 6 are stated in the above evidence Nos. 1 and 6:

-

(1) From 191 to 191, the Plaintiff received a subcontract for wooden construction works performed by ○○ Development, and performed construction works directly by collecting human resources.

(2) On October 1, 2003, after becoming a member of the △△ Construction, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with a construction period of KRW 637,900,000 for the construction cost from October 1, 2003 to July 31, 2004, and directly recruited a person while working as a site manager.

(3) The Plaintiff paid 5% of the construction price to ○ Construction with the name lending commission, and received 693,000,000 won as the construction price from ○ Development during the period from February 2, 2003 to February 2, 2005, and then prepared and issued a deposit sheet and a purchase tax invoice to ○○ Development who is an issuer of ○○ Construction.

(4) On October 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) retired from △△ Construction on April 25, 2007; and (b) leased the name of △△△, holding a license for a specialized construction business with respect to the portion of reinforced concrete construction among new construction projects, such as the △△ Research and Training Institute, which was carried out by ○○○○ Development; (c) concluded a subcontract with a construction period fixed at KRW 320,000,000 for the construction cost; and (d) submitted a letter of waiver of the construction work in the name of △△△△ on June 29, 2007, when the payment of wages and material prices for the figures was delayed while working as the site manager, and the Plaintiff was in arrears with the payment of wages and material prices for the figures while working as the site manager.

(5) The Plaintiff paid 5% of the construction price to △△ Young-young with the nominal name lending commission, and received KRW 198,000,000 as the construction price due to the climatic high interest accrued from 207 to 300,000 from 207 to 198,000 as the construction price due to the expiration of the construction contract, and then prepared and issued a purchase tax invoice to ○○ Development who is an issuer of △△-young.

(6) Meanwhile, while executing the above contracted construction, the Plaintiff made a wage ledger for the employees and paid the wages directly to the employees.

(7) On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation stating that “The Plaintiff received orders from the Defendant’s employees from the Seoul Regional Tax Office for the basic construction work for ○○ Development, etc., which is being investigated, but issued a false tax invoice for the construction work in the name of △△ and △△△, and the principal’s sales of the construction work were omitted. The fact of lending a specialized construction license is known by the president of the regular AA, the ChoB, the head of the NewCC, etc., and paid or deducted 5% of the construction work cost directly on the wage ledger from among the remainder to the △ Construction and △△△, and the Plaintiff received and paid it to the father.”

(8) On October 21, 2008, △△△’s representative director DoD, prepared and submitted a written confirmation that “△△△△ was issued and did not have any construction work and sent part of the temporary materials to the Plaintiff with respect to the △△△△△△ Construction,” to the employees of the Defendant.

(9) ○○개발의 관리전무 정EE의 컴퓨터에는 "김사장과 최근 거래는 ◇◇병원, ◁◁트를 공사한 바가 있습니다, 명의를 차용한 이유는 김FF 사장이 사업장이 없는 관계로 명의업체를 차용하여 공사수주한 사항입니다, △△영 이전에 □□건설로 거래한 사실이 있습니다, △△영과 하도급시 본사 정사장님 ... 사전 인지되었다는 사항입니다"는 내용의 문서가 저장되어 있었다.

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proof of the existence of the taxation requirement fact is against the tax authority, but if the facts alleged in the specific lawsuit and the facts alleged in the facts in light of the empirical rule are revealed, the other party cannot be deemed an illegal disposition for which the taxation requirement is not satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13894, Jul. 10, 1998) unless the tax authority proves that the pertinent facts at issue are not subject to the application of the empirical rule, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the tax authority received a written confirmation from the person liable to pay tax in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it is difficult to readily deny the evidence of the written confirmation, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the intent of the person who prepared it, or where it is difficult to consider it as evidence of the specific facts due to lack of the content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 20

(2) In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff performed the said construction as an independent business operator after receiving a supply of reinforced concrete among new construction works, such as △△ Hospital’s new construction works, among new construction works, such as △△ Hospital’s new construction works, △△ Hospital’s new construction works, etc., and there is no other evidence to reverse the said recognition. Therefore, each of the instant dispositions based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual contractor of the said construction is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that each disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed as it is without merit.