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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or they can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 8, 9, Gap evidence No. 15, Eul evidence No. 10, and Eul evidence No. 1 through No. 10 (including additional numbers).

가. 원고는 부동산임대업 등을 영위할 목적으로 2006. 4. 6. 설립된 법인으로 2006. 4.경부터 2007. 4. 15.까지 사이에 천안시 QQ동 1492 대지 669.7㎡ 지상에 지하 2층, 지상 8층 규모의 원룸형 오피스텔(이하 '이 사건 오피스텔'이라 한다)을 신축하였다.

B. The Plaintiff received 12 copies of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 5,029,344,945 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from the CC Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Comprehensive Construction”) and the AAA General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AA Comprehensive Construction”) in relation to the instant officetel construction during the taxable period from LL in 2006 to 1st, 2007, and filed a return of each value-added tax after deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. The Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff between November 26, 2007 and January 31, 2008. As a result, the instant officetel was not newly constructed under the contract with the Plaintiff, but directly constructed the Plaintiff under the name of the construction business from the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff did not have been provided services from the Plaintiff’s CC General Construction and AA Comprehensive Construction. Thus, the instant tax invoice received from the Plaintiff’s CC General Construction and AA Comprehensive Construction did not constitute a false tax invoice, and the input tax amount was not deducted from the input tax amount on February 13, 2008 by deeming that all of the instant tax invoice received from the Plaintiff constituted a false tax invoice, and thus, the input tax amount was deducted from the input tax amount on February 13, 2006 as the 124,627,280 won, and the 322,783,300 won as the value-added tax on February 2, 2006 as the value-added tax on January 1, 2007.

D. In addition, with respect to KRW 1,104,814,850 of the construction cost paid by the Plaintiff to a subcontractor by lending the name ofCC General Construction and AA Comprehensive Construction, the Defendant prepared a double contract with a subcontractor, a corporation EE&W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD Construction”), GG facilities, quasi-commercial materials, etc., and received the processed purchase tax invoice and paid the construction cost by withdrawing the construction cost. Since the difference equivalent to the difference was returned to the Plaintiff’s mother, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company or FB, who was the head of GF, was returned to the Plaintiff Company’s company’s president, and the Defendant deemed the above amount to have been released from the company, and disposed of it as a bonus to the Plaintiff’s representative in February 11, 2008, and then disposed of it to the Plaintiff on February 11, 2008 (hereinafter “the income amount notice”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 10, 2008 on May 8, 2008, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on February 27, 2009.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The disposition imposing value-added tax on the instant case is a substitute

Although the Plaintiff was established to construct the instant officetel, but it was impossible to directly execute construction works due to the lack of capital, etc., because it was impossible to obtain a license for a comprehensive construction business, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the instant officetel construction works and the instant officetel construction works. The instant officetel was completed upon entering into a subcontract with subordinate companies by entering into a subcontract with subcontractor as the CC General Construction and AA General Construction. In the process, the Plaintiff’s general executive director, participated in the decision-making process of the said company and conducted subordinate businesses’ decision-making, payment of construction cost, and supervision of construction management, and the Plaintiff did not perform the instant construction works by borrowing a comprehensive construction business license from the CC General Construction and AA General Construction. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice that occurred to the Plaintiff does not constitute a false tax invoice, despite the fact, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax based on a different tax invoice is unlawful.

(2) On the notice of the change in the income amount of this case

The Defendant deemed the company as a bonus from 1,104,814,850 won in 2006 and disposed of it as 45,00,000 won in the Plaintiff’s representative director. However, since ① 484,968,800 won out of the amount deposited in the accounts of ChoB and ParkF was immediately returned to the Plaintiff, it cannot be viewed as the outflow from the company. ② 460,213,395 won in the Plaintiff’s account book is treated as the provisional payment on the Plaintiff’s company’s account books, and ③ 40,000,000,000 won in the 40,000,000 won in the 405,000,000 won in the 204,000,000 won in the 204,000,000 won in the 219,000 won in the 204,000,000 won in the 20,00.

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry of the attached statutes.

C. Determination on the imposition of value-added tax of this case

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 17, Gap evidence 19, Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings.

(A) On April 6, 2006, Y, HaM, etc. established a corporation for the business of constructing and renting the instant officetel, and selling it in units, and on April 6, 2006, HaM established the Plaintiff Company on the following grounds: (a) ChoB’s representative director; (b) Y is responsible for audit; (c) Y is responsible for the construction of the instant officetel as a managing director; and (d) HaM is responsible for the conclusion of the subcontract, the management of funds, etc. by having OM take charge of management directors.

(B) On April 13, 2006, the Plaintiff Company entered into a construction contract with UU Industry Development Co., Ltd. for the instant officetel construction work by stipulating the construction cost of KRW 4,972,00,000, and the construction period from April 13, 2006 to February 20, 2007. The Plaintiff Company directly changed the said construction contract to the execution of the said construction work on the ground that the said construction work is paid to the construction company a large amount of the construction cost surrounding the said construction work. However, the Plaintiff Company had no comprehensive construction business license necessary for the direct construction of the instant officetel construction work, and thus, agreed to borrow and execute the said construction work from another company.

(C) Accordingly, sulfur H had experienced the intention of granting a construction business license to KimT, the representative director of theCC comprehensive construction, which was well known and known as a usual-friendly district. Accordingly, KimT proposed that sulfurV take over and implement construction work rather than obtaining a license loan, and thereby, sulfurH and KimT paid 120 million won to sulfur comprehensive construction, and first completed the acquisition procedure on December 2006, 206 after paying 60 million won as the down payment. However, Kim TT opened the permission and deposit passbook for the instant officetel construction to enable the Plaintiff company to execute the instant officetel comprehensive construction in its name.

(D) On May 13, 2006, the Plaintiff Company drafted a construction contract agreement as if it entered into a contract agreement between the Plaintiff Company and the CC General Construction with respect to the instant instant officetel construction work on April 13, 2006, including the date of commencement of the construction work and February 20, 2007.

(E) After that, the Plaintiff Company’s former manager, directly selected the subcontractor for each process in relation to the instant officetel construction, and determined the construction cost, and actually managed and supervised all specific construction processes at the construction site. In addition, OM, a management director of the Plaintiff Company, prepared a subcontract agreement with the subcontractor in the name of the CC comprehensive construction, and was in charge of the receipt and issuance of the tax invoice in the name of the CC comprehensive construction in the name of the subcontractor while keeping the employee reduction of the CC comprehensive construction and the corporate deposit passbooks. As such, there was no involvement in the process of the instant officetel construction, the conclusion of subcontract and the conclusion of construction cost, KimT or other employees, the representative director of the CC comprehensive construction, who is the representative director in charge of the issuance of the tax invoice.

(F) However, KimT, the representative director of the CC General Construction, delayed the payment of the balance of the transfer price from the Plaintiff, and demanded that it exclude the name of the CC General Construction in relation to the instant officetel Construction without transferring it to Y. Accordingly, it decided to establish a company with a comprehensive construction business license. At the time, it was changed the type of the business of DDD DD DD Construction, a real estate intermediary corporation, for which AO was the representative director, into ELUUU, while it was changed to the category of the company with a real estate brokerage corporation ELB, ELUU, which was the representative director of the CC General Construction, into the construction company. The representative director of DaDDD Construction, who was the representative director of the NA General Construction, participated in YW and increased capital, obtained a comprehensive construction business license on October 2006, and changed the name of the corporation AAD General Construction, which was the actual name of 50% B, 30% MD 3, 47% MD.

(G) Accordingly, on October 1, 2006, the Plaintiff Company re-written a contract for private construction works with respect to the instant instant officetel construction works on October 1, 2006, with the content of the construction contract amounting to KRW 2,860,000,000, and the date of succession to the construction work, and on February 28, 2007, the date of the scheduled completion date, the AAGeneral Construction succeeds to the AA General Construction. Accordingly, the subcontract for the instant officetel construction works was concluded in the name of AA General Construction, and the payment of construction cost, receipt and issuance of tax invoices, etc. were conducted in the name of AA General Construction, and all of the substantial tasks were conducted by M, H and management directors of the Plaintiff Company.

(h) As seen earlier, OM drafted 12 copies of purchase tax invoices as if it provided the Plaintiff with construction services equivalent to the total supply price during the taxable period from January 2006 to January 2007 in relation to the instant officetel construction and the AAA comprehensive construction in relation to the instant officetel construction, as seen earlier. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff Company deducted the pertinent input tax amount from the output tax amount and filed a return of each value-added tax with the Defendant after deducting the pertinent input tax amount from the output tax amount.

(2) Determination

In light of the aforementioned facts acknowledged as above, ① the Plaintiff borrowed only the name of the Plaintiff company’s general construction business license or AAA Construction with respect to the instant officetel construction business, and directly implemented the instant construction business through Yellow H, a managing director of the Plaintiff company. ② Not only the Plaintiff was the subcontractor who actually implemented the instant officetel construction business, but also the payment for the construction price was made by OM, the Plaintiff’s management director, and there was no part of the Plaintiff’s participation in the instant CC General Construction or AAB Construction; ③ there was no portion of the actual construction of the instant officetel construction business; ③ there was no employee, including the representative director, of the CC General Construction or AAB Construction, and there was no employee related to the said construction business, and ④ the fact that each of the instant construction business was concluded under the name of the Plaintiff company and the Plaintiff’s comprehensive construction business owner, which was not a new owner of the instant construction business, under the name of the Plaintiff company’s comprehensive construction business owner or the Plaintiff’s comprehensive construction business owner’s name.

D. Determination on the notice of change in the income amount of this case

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 6 to 11 of the evidence Nos. 11 (including additional numbers) may be admitted as a whole to the whole purport of the pleadings.

(A) In order to raise profits with respect to the instant instant officetel construction project, Y, ChoB, etc.: (a) newly constructed and leased officetels; and (b) immediately increase sales profits through sales in lots. In order to reduce tax burden, the subcontractor performed the construction work as it is necessary to increase the acquisition cost of the building; (c) then, the subcontractor’s construction cost is softened through a double contract with the subcontractor, and then, (d) appropriated the amount higher than the actual transaction price as the construction cost and then, (e) made up for the difference as the non-funds and its mother’s deposit passbook, etc. to transfer the difference to YB and its mother FF’s deposit passbook.

(B) Yellow H 20. The company sought to process the construction of the instant officetel to WT, the representative director of the DD Construction, which is a high school, to use the above company's license, but to arrange tax invoices, etc. It accepted it and opened and issued the said company's employees reduction and passbook to HuH. The company received 1,105,000,000 won in total from DD Construction for the year 2006, 114,850 won in total from 00, 2000, 2006.6.6, 200, 2006.6.6, 200, 2006.6.6.0, 200, 2006.6.6.0, 200, 2006.6.6.0, 200, 200, 2006.6.6.6, 200, 2006, 2006.6.6.6

(C) On November 2, 2006, the Plaintiff handled as if he remitted KRW 307,700,000 to the IntegratedCC Construction as a result of the construction cost, and received KRW 27,700,000 as a passbook of ParkF on the same day, and received KRW 280,000,000 as a passbook of the Plaintiff Company, respectively, and among them, treated KRW 280,000 as a counter-payment by the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

(D) Although GG facilities this K entered into a construction contract with the construction cost of KRW 288,00,000 under the name ofCC for the construction of the instant officetel among the new construction works of the instant officetel, it entered into a construction contract, and implemented the construction work at the Plaintiff’s request, it again entered into a construction contract with the construction cost of KRW 400,000 on November 1, 2006, and then delivered the tax invoice for KRW 400,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and thereafter, transferred the difference of KRW 12,00,000,000 to the head of Tong, designated by the Plaintiff Company on December 19, 2006.

(E) On June 14, 2006, EE&T drafted a subcontract agreement of KRW 280,000,000 for the construction cost of the instant officetel construction and fire fighting construction. On November 1, 2006, E&T issued, at the request of the Plaintiff Company, a tax invoice of KRW 310,000,000 in total in supply price in the year 2006, and received the payment, and thereafter remitted KRW 132,00,000 among them to the head of TongF (hereinafter referred to as “CB”) and then delivered KRW 37,00,000 in the face value of the instant officetel construction to ChoB as the total purchase price.

(F) The Plaintiff Company received processing tax invoices of KRW 204,00,000 in total supply value during the period of the return of value-added tax for the second half of 2006 from the associate merchant of data through the AA Construction, and received KRW 100,000 as the passbook from December 21, 2006.

(G) As seen earlier, the following table (hereinafter referred to as the “instant statement of outflow from the company”) is the details of double contracts, or those received from the processing tax invoice and deposited into the ChoB, ParkF, and the Plaintiff’s passbook in 2006.

(2) Determination

(A) Unless there are special circumstances, the act of a representative director, etc., who is the actual manager of a corporation uses the corporation's funds on the premise of recovery at the beginning, and thus constitutes an act of outflow from the company as an expenditure itself. As to special circumstances which cannot be deemed as the premise of recovery from the utilization time, the representative director's profit equivalent to the processing cost of the corporation should be deemed as an outflow of the corporation's income, barring special circumstances, such as the actual status within the representative director, etc., who is the subject of embezzlement, the degree of control over the corporation, the circumstances leading to embezzlement, and whether it is difficult to see that the representative director, etc.'s intent is identical to the corporation's intent or that the corporate economic interest with the representative director, etc. is in fact consistent. Such special circumstances must be proved by the corporation asserting it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du2323, Nov. 13, 2008). 207; where a corporation appropriates the processing cost in its account, barring special circumstances.

(B) In light of the above legal principles, in order to raise extra capital, ChoB, etc., the representative director of the Plaintiff company, was used to make a double contract with the subcontractor in the process of the construction of the instant officetel and to make up for the payment of extra capital, or to make up for the false calculation on the account book, and then to make up for extra capital not included in the Plaintiff company’s account books by receiving the payment equivalent to the difference from the subcontractor to the subcontractor. In addition, the extra capital created as such was deposited into the borrowed account in the name of ChoB, the representative director of the Plaintiff company, or his mother ParkF, and some parts were delivered to ChoB and used as the capital increase for the AA comprehensive construction of the Plaintiff company and appropriated as the debt to the Plaintiff company of the Plaintiff company in the account book, which was appropriated as the provisional payment of the representative director on the account book. By this method, it shall be deemed that the extra capital was not a special bonus to be ratified to the representative director in the year 2006.

(C) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s individual assertion

1) As to the part of KRW 484,968,80 that u300 u300 was returned to the Plaintiff Company

The plaintiff asserts that 484,968,80 won, out of the amount deposited into the accounts of ChoB and ParkF, was immediately returned to the plaintiff, so it cannot be viewed as the outflow from the company.

First, as stated in the statement of the outflow of the company in this case, it can be recognized that the plaintiff company's account was deposited immediately in the plaintiff company's account in the name of CCTV Construction on November 2, 2006. However, as seen earlier, the above amount is not used as the operating fund of the plaintiff company but as the provisional payment of the amount of ChoB, which is stated in the account book, and is actually used in the repayment of the individual debt of ChoB, and therefore, it is reasonable that the defendant treated it as the outflow of the company and disposed of it to the representative director ChoB.

In addition, according to the evidence as seen earlier, if the Plaintiff asserts that he deposited the Plaintiff’s account, the ChoB et al. concluded a double contract with the subcontractor, etc. from January 29, 2007 to March 9, 2007, or received the processed tax invoice from the subcontractor, etc., and received the difference corresponding to the difference and then transferred the money to the Plaintiff’s deposit account. However, the amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s account is the amount separate from the Plaintiff’s account in 2007, and it is apparent that it is not included in KRW 1,104,814,850 for the year 2006. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review.

2) As to the portion of the representative director's provisional payment KRW 460,213,395

The plaintiff asserts that 460,213,395 won is treated as the provisional payment by the representative on the books of the plaintiff company, and that the plaintiff company has claims against ChoB as much as the above amount, so it cannot be viewed as the outflow from the company.

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion that the representative director has appropriated the difference in the construction cost returned to the subcontractor, etc. in the name of the representative director, the representative director, and the subcontractor. The plaintiff asserted that the representative director, the representative director, and the representative director, who is attached to Gap evidence No. 12, had been in custody of the plaintiff's tax accountant, but it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff did not attach all relevant documents, despite the plaintiff's assertion that the title of the adjudication division, which is the disclosure of the contents of the provisional payment, had been in custody of the plaintiff's tax accountant. Furthermore, even if the contents of the provisional payment statement are recognized as it is, the plaintiff's assertion that the provisional payment amount remains in the form of 2,105,083,170 won from April 7, 2006 to April 27, 2007 and the representative director, the representative director, the representative director, and the representative director, the representative director, 25,295,56, etc.

In this regard, the plaintiff argued that the amount equivalent to 48.0 million won out of the amount deposited in the passbook of ChoB as much as the representative director's deposit amount was deposited in the plaintiff company's passbook, and that the amount was used in the plaintiff company's company's business, and that the amount of provisional payment and provisional payment was merely a virtual account and should be managed in accordance with the actual nature in the future without settlement of accounts. Thus, it cannot be concluded that it was out of the company because it was recorded in the account book as a provisional payment, as seen above, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount of 480 million won out of the amount of disposal of the defendant's company out of the company in 2006 was deposited as the plaintiff company's passbook and used as the company's business fund, etc., the plaintiff's argument on this part is without merit.

3) Whether the MediationB paid the construction cost on behalf of the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the amount of KRW 70,00,000 for DD Construction, a subcontractor for the instant officetel construction on behalf of the Plaintiff, and KRW 45,00,000 for AA comprehensive construction, and KRW 34,30,000 for DD Construction, which is a subcontractor for the instant officetel construction on behalf of the Plaintiff, shall not be deemed as a outflow.

First, according to the evidence as seen earlier, it can be acknowledged that: (a) CB transferred the amount paid to DD Construction Account to KRW 5 million on April 14, 2006; (b) KRW 15 million in the name of natural company and love, the representative director of DDB, and KRW 20 million in the name of DB on the same day; and (c) KRW 30 million in May 8, 2006, KRW 30 million in the amount paid to DD Construction. However, according to the evidence as seen above, the Plaintiff’s assertion that DB was paid out on behalf of the representative director of DD on May 8, 2006, that the representative director of DB was appropriated as KRW 30 million in the name of the company and KRW 20 million in the name of Love; and (d) the Plaintiff’s payment was not made on behalf of the representative director of DB on the same day, and thus, it can not be accepted that DB was made on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Next, according to each of the above evidence, even if a mediationB remitted the amount of KRW 20 million on July 6, 2007 to AA General Construction, and KRW 25 million on July 13, 2007, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff's assertion that the AA General Construction is paid directly for the construction work since it was established by the plaintiff company to use only the construction business license in the direct management of the 2007 Office Construction, as seen above, since it was not actually carried out the construction work, it is difficult to believe that the above amount was paid directly for the construction work cost, and even if it was remitted for the use as the construction cost for AA General Construction subcontractor as the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to view that the time was made in 2007 and it was related to the extra-capital fund created in 2006. Thus, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's assertion that it should be excluded from the outflow amount in the year 2006.

Finally, according to each of the above evidence, it is difficult to conclude that CB transferred each of the above amounts of KRW 15 million to the account under the name of GG facilities this K, KRW 5 million on August 14, 2006, KRW 5 million on July 26, 2007, KRW 5 million on August 2, 2007, KRW 5 million on August 11, 2007, KRW 200,000 on August 22, 2007, and KRW 23 million on September 9, 2007, even though this remittance is recognized, it is difficult to conclude that CB paid the construction cost on behalf of the Plaintiff. Moreover, this part of the claim is not accepted since most of the payment dates were made in the year 2007, and it appears that it was unrelated to the non-performing funds that were released from the company in 206.

4) The sales amount of KRW 200 million for the instant site newly built of the instant officetel

The plaintiff purchased the instant officetel site and stated the sales contract amounting to KRW 900 million, despite the fact that the actual sales price was KRW 1.1 billion, and argued that the sales contract amounting to KRW 200 million, as ChoB paid the difference to the seller on behalf of the plaintiff, the amount of KRW 200 million cannot be deemed to be the outflow from the company.

살피건대, 원고 회사가 이 사건 오피스텔 부지인 천안시 QQ동 1492 대 669.7㎡에 관하여 소유자인 최RR 외 2인과 사이에서 11억 원에 매매계약을 체결 하였으나, 2006. 7. 1. 작성된 매매계약서에는 매매대금을 9억 원으로 낮추어 기재한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 원고의 주장처럼 조BB가 오MM의 부인인 백PP 명의의 통장에 2006. 3. 16. 110,000,000원을, 다음날인 2006. 3. 17. 현금 1억 원을 각 입금한 사실도 인정된다. 그런데 백PP의 통장에 입금된 2억 1,000만 원이 매수자인 최RR 등에게 지급되었다는 점을 인정할 자료가 없는 이 사건에서, 위와 같은 사실만으로 조BB가 이 사건 오피스텔 부지를 매입하는 과정에서 매매대금 중 2억 원을 원고 대신 지급하였다고 단정하기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 이 부분에 대한 원고의 주장도 이유 없다.

5) The portion that Article B bears the interest on the Plaintiff’s debt.

The plaintiff asserts that, for the construction of the instant officetel, since the plaintiff paid interest on the debt borrowed from financial institutions to February 2, 2009 for the construction of the instant officetel, 124,447,00 won equivalent to the interest corresponding to that portion shall not be regarded as the outflow from the company.

Therefore, according to the statements in Gap's evidence No. 13, Gap's evidence No. 14, Gap's evidence No. 34, and Eul's evidence No. 35, on May 23, 2006, the plaintiff obtained a loan of 2.6 billion won from a national bank on Nov. 27, 2006, respectively, from a national bank on Nov. 27, 2006, and the repayment of loans of the above national bank with additional 2.5 billion won on July 9, 2008. However, with respect to the plaintiff's assertion that ChoB repaid interest of each of the above loans on behalf of the plaintiff, the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no evidence to support it.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 14, with respect to loans extended from the Young-dong Agricultural Cooperative, to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff deposited the amount equivalent to the interest on loans (such as KRW 12 million or KRW 1.5 million) before and after the 20th day of each month from June 23, 2006 to July 9, 2008 at the time when the additional loans are made, and then deposited the amount to the loan management account of the Young-dong Agricultural Cooperative on a regular basis, and appropriated the interest on loans in addition to the interest on loans around the 23 to 26th day of each month. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the allegation that ChoB paid the interest on the Plaintiff’s loans with its personal funds on behalf of the Plaintiff.

(D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's 1,104,814,850 won reverted to the representative director BB of the plaintiff company in 2006 and the defendant's 1,104,814,850 won was regarded as the outflow from the company and notified the disposition of income as a bonus to the

3. Conclusion

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