2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiff AA Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff AA Industry Development”) and the Plaintiff AAA Housing Industry (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff AA Housing Industry”) are corporations engaged in the construction business in each Dongbcheon-si 502, and Plaintiff AA Industry Development receives tax invoices of the total value of supply in the business year 2007 fromCC Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC Steel”), and filed corporate tax returns by adding the above value of supply to deductible expenses when calculating the amount of income for the business year in question. Plaintiff AA Housing Industry receives tax invoices of the total value of supply in the business year in 2007, and reported corporate tax by adding the above value of supply to deductible expenses when calculating the amount of income for the business year in question. Plaintiff AA Housing Industry receives tax invoices of KRW 000,000, total value of supply fromCC Steel for the business year in 207.

B. On the ground that the above tax invoice received fromCC Steel as a result of the tax investigation was a processed tax invoice prepared falsely without any actual transaction, the Defendant imposed each corporate tax on Plaintiff AA industry development and AAA housing industry by excluding the corresponding supply value from the income amount for the pertinent business year. The Defendant imposed each of the above dispositions under Article 11-2(4)1 and 3 of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and Article 9(1) of the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (hereinafter referred to as “each of the dispositions of this case”) on Plaintiff AA industry development and AA housing industry development and the Plaintiff KimB, the representative director of the AA house industry, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-6, Gap evidence 2-1 through 7, Gap evidence 8-1-3, Eul evidence 1-8, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

원고들은 CC철강으로부터 가공세금계산서를 받은 점은 인정하지만, 원고 AA산업개발이 2007, 2008 사업연도에 화성시 향남읍 OO리 소재 EEEE유통단지공사, 군산시 OO동 소재 OOQQ타워공사, 같은 동 소재 FF타워공사 등 3개의 공사 현장에서, 원고 AA주택산업이 2007 사업연도에 구미시 산동면 OO리 소재 구미국가산업제0단지내 GG식당공사 등 1개의 공사현장에서 실제로 유한회사 HH의 영업부장 여II으로부터 철근을 납품받고 지급한 철근구입대금과 원고 AA산엽개발이 김JJ에게 위 OOQQ타워의 분양대행을 위임하여 지급한 분양대행수수료는 이를 각 원고 AA산업개발 및 AA주택산업의 해당 사업연도의 손금에 산입하여야 한다. 따라서 이에 대한 대응 원가를 인정하지 않고 한 이 사건 각 처분은 위법하므로 취소되어야 한다.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

납세의무자가 신고한 어느 비용 중의 일부 금액이 실지비용이냐 아니냐가 다투어 지고 과세관청에 의해 납세의무자 측이 주장하는 비용의 용도와 지급의 상대방이 허위임이 상당한 정도로 입증되었고 납세의무자가 신고내역대로의 비용지출은 아님을 시인하면서 같은 금액만큼의 다른 무엇인가의 비용 소요사실이 있었다고 주장하는 이상 그 신고비용과 다른 비용의 존재와 액수에 관하여는 구체적 비용지출 사실에 관한 장부기장과 증빙 등 일체의 자료를 제시하기가 용이한 납세의무자 측에서 이를 입증할 필요가 있다고 보아야 할 것이다(대법원 1995. 7. 14. 선고 94누3407 판결, 1992. 3. 27. 선고 91누12912 판결 참조). 원고들은 피고의 세무조사로 인해 CC철강으로부터 수령한 세금계산서가 가공세 금계산서임이 밝혀지자 위 가공매입과 관련해 실제 소요된 다른 비용이 있다고 주장하면서 이를 손금으로 인정해 줄 것을 요구하고 있으나, 원고들의 주장에 부합하는 듯한 갑 제3호증의 1, 2, 갑 제4호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 11, 갑 제7호증의 1, 2, 갑 제15호증의 1 내지 10의 각 기재, 증인 여II, 김JJ, 김KK의 각 증언은 모두 아래에서 볼 사정들에 비추어 믿기 어렵고, 그 밖에 원고들이 제출한 증거들만으로는 원고 AA산업개발 및 AA주택산업이 실제로 여II으로부터 철근을 납품받고 철근구입대금을 지급하였음과 원고 AA산업개발이 김JJ에게 OOQQ타워의 분양대행을 위임하여 분양대행수수료를 지급하였음을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 오히려, 앞서 거시한 증거 및 을 제2 내지 7호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음의 사정들을 종합하여 볼때 추가비용의 손금인정을 요구하는 취지의 원고들의 위 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

(1) The Plaintiff KimB’s pocket book, a certificate of the fact-finding of the Plaintiff KimB’s transactions in those II, a certificate of the fact-finding of the said construction work, and a certificate of the payment of official fees by Kim J, which was submitted as supporting documents that the Plaintiff AA Industry Development and AAA’s real transaction with Kim J, and documents that were submitted as supporting documents that the Plaintiff AA industry development was actually traded with Kim J.

(2) In this Court’s appearance and statement, this Court did not present a clear presentation as to where to purchase the supplied steel bars as well as the actual quantity of steel bars supplied by the plaintiffs in relation to the above construction work.

(3) According to the National Tax Service’s electronic data, in the case of these II, there are only the history of operating a restaurant and a main store in Gunsan City between around 2002, and there was no earned income data between around 2007 and around 2008, which is the business year of this case. In the case of Kim JJ, it did not have a business registration for a sales agency business for the purpose of a sales agency business, nor did it indicate the details of withholding at source upon receiving a sales price from Plaintiff AA Industry Development.

(4) 김JJ은 수송QQ타워 공사 당시 원고 AA산업개발의 직원으로 근무하였던 것으로 드러난다.

(5) The Plaintiffs asserted that they actually traded with the said Section II, the KimJ and did not clearly present the financial transaction details related to the purchase price of the iron bars that were paid to said Section II and the KimJ (the Plaintiffs are merely asserting that the said withdrawn money was used as the purchase price of the steel bars by the Plaintiff KimB while presenting only the data that the Plaintiff KimB withdrawn from his own account).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.