The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-1, 3-1, 1, 3-1, 4-2.

A. On June 3, 2002, the Plaintiff, who runs the construction business with the trade name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, contracted a contract for a household facility construction among the new construction of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and subcontracted

B. In filing a return of the global income tax attributed to year 2002, the Plaintiff, based on the supply price of 43,406,510 won in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○○○”) (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”), deducted the supply price from the necessary expenses.

C. The Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was issued without a real transaction, and thereby excluded the supply value on the instant tax invoice from necessary expenses, and subsequently revised or notified the Plaintiff on January 3, 2006, KRW 21,066,254 of the global income tax for the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The tax invoice of this case is unlawful since Kim○-○ purchased the 43,406,510 Won as the construction cost received from the Plaintiff for the construction work, and received from the Plaintiff as the construction cost, and then delivered again to the Plaintiff, and the value of supply should be included in the necessary expenses. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation on the grounds of illegality of taxation disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of disposition and the existence of taxation requirements. Therefore, the tax authority is also responsible for proving the amount of expenses to be included in deductible expenses, which are the basis of determining the amount of income tax, in principle. However, in a case where the taxpayer contests whether some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer are actual expenses or not, and the taxpayer asserts that it is false or that the reported amount is required for other expenses of the same amount, the taxpayer needs to prove the existence and amount of other expenses.

However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff is a person who was supplied with the instant tax invoice between the Plaintiff himself/herself and the ○○○○○○, and there was no transaction corresponding to the content of the instant tax invoice. As such, the Plaintiff must prove that the value of supply under the instant tax invoice was spent for any other cost as much as the amount.

Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to the value of the tax invoice of this case to Kim○○ as the construction cost, and whether Kim○○ purchased the sn beam beam from Hong○○○ as the price for its purchase, there is no objective document to acknowledge that Kim○ paid the sn beam beam to Hong○○○. On the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 4-2 and 4-3 of evidence Nos. 4-2 and 4-3 of this case, it is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion on September 10, 2002 in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the name of Jung○○○○, the Plaintiff’s name of ○○○○○, which is the Plaintiff’s type of deposit account in the name of ○○○○○, which is the Plaintiff’s account of 4,340,651 won equivalent to the value-added tax amount of the tax invoice of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise.

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which the Defendant recognized transaction according to the tax invoice of this case as a processing transaction and excluded the value of supply from necessary expenses, is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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