법인세등부과처분취소
1. It is confirmed that each collection disposition written in the attached Form 1 attached hereto, which the Defendant attached to the Plaintiff, is invalid.
2. The plaintiff.
1. The transaction partner's tax invoice receipt details during the last half of 2008, the amount (cost of supply, cost of supply) as of the date of the purchase tax invoice for the second half of 2008 (cost of supply), which is 1,706,712,202 on December 4, 2008, which is the date of the purchase of the sales tax invoice for the second half of 2008 (cost of supply), shall be the same as that of the transaction partner's purchase of the purchase tax invoice. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1, 1,046, 822, 202, Dec. 29, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 1741, Oct. 41, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 17000, Oct. 30, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 190358, Nov. 30, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 181765, Mar. 10, 2007, 2007, 2000, Feb. 20000, 2000.
A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacture of railroad signal facilities and the electrical construction business, issued and delivered sales tax invoices of KRW 1,706,712,202 in total proceeds from supply to Dasan S&S, a business partner, in the latter part of 2008, and received purchase tax invoices of KRW 2,037,922,202 in total proceeds from supply from 2,037,000,000 in total from B in the latter part of 209. The details are as follows.
B. From July 21, 2011 to October 22, 2011, the Central Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation of corporate tax (the period of taxation: the period of taxation from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010) with respect to the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff received each of the above tax invoices (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from Dasan S&S and B, etc. without real transaction. The Plaintiff was released out of the Plaintiff’s funds in the process of receiving each of the said tax invoices, and the Plaintiff’s real estate transferred as payment for work price from Dan Korea Construction Co., Ltd. under the name of the Plaintiff’s representative, who is not the Plaintiff himself/herself, unfairly reduced the Plaintiff’s tax burden on the Plaintiff’s income by registering the real estate in the name of the Plaintiff’s representative, who is not the Plaintiff himself/herself, and the Plaintiff’s salary exceeds the actual salary for its employees.