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

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation that runs a construction business, provided construction services to theCC Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”), and issued a tax invoice. However, the amount of the construction outstanding as of 2009 was KRW 11,025,00,000 on the ground that it did not receive service fees from the non-party company.

B. On September 2010, the non-party company was subject to a disposition on deficits with respect to the amount of national taxes in arrears, and on October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff deemed that the amount of the above credit against the non-party company has become final and conclusive, and filed a claim for rectification with the Defendant for reduction of KRW 1,002,313,637 of value-added tax for the second period of No. 2

C. However, on November 14, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for rectification on the ground that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the construction amount receivable in the year 2009 was not completed as of the second taxable period in 2010, and the period of bad debt has not yet arrived.

D. On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff corrected the amount of a claim for correction to be reduced to KRW 954,545,780, and thereafter filed an objection against the above disposition by the Defendant. The Defendant reviewed the above objection and decided to re-examine on December 26, 2013.

E. After re-investigation, the Defendant collected KRW 3,560,00,000 among the claim for the payment of construction price as the per share sheet or promissory note issued by DD (hereinafter “instant promissory note, etc.”) by the representative director of the non-party company, and thus, the Defendant did not accept the application for a bad debt tax credit of KRW 3,296,00,000 remaining after excluding the outstanding amount of KRW 264,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant promissory note, etc.”) and notified the non-party company that it would refuse to refund KRW 605,17,363 out of the application for rectification of the amount of value-added tax of KRW 954,545,780 on February 10, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant refusal disposition”).

F. On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on July 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2-1, 2-3-1, 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the rejection disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s loan of promissory notes, etc. issued by DD from DD in the name of “F” to the subcontractor, and the payment for the construction work is not made by the non-party company to the Plaintiff by lending promissory notes, etc. to DD, notwithstanding that the non-party company did not pay the construction work price to the Plaintiff, the non-party’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s application for the bad debt tax deduction of KRW 3,296,00,000 remaining after deducting the unpaid KRW 264,000,000, out of the face value of promissory notes, etc. issued by DD, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

The value-added tax that adopts the pre-stage tax credit system, unlike income tax and corporate tax, has the form of transaction tax imposed on the external appearance of transaction, which is not a substantial income, and thus, the tax base of value-added tax is the total value of the supply of goods, etc. In addition, if the entrepreneur fails to receive the price for the reason of bankruptcy, bankruptcy, etc. after the entrepreneur supplied goods, etc. on credit, the entrepreneur suffers economic losses as well as the value-added tax paid by the State. Article 17-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for a bad debt tax credit system that is imposed by deducting the amount equivalent to the value-added tax that the entrepreneur has not received from the other party in order

In addition, since the bad debt tax deduction system is an exceptional system to prevent economic loss of value-added tax taxpayers, there is a claim and burden of proof about the taxpayer's bad debt tax in order to get the refund of value-added tax by applying for a deduction of bad debt tax amount. Whether the value of supply of goods, etc. is impossible to be recovered or not should be determined objectively according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account the specific details of transactions and the circumstances after it

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the non-party company borrowed the Promissory Notes, etc. from DDR individuals, not the construction cost equivalent to the Promissory Notes, etc. of this case, but the Plaintiff borrowed the Promissory Notes, etc., without any other evidence to

Rather, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 7, 8-1 through 56, 10-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15, 11-1, 11-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, 2-1 through 9, 3-5, and all of the pleadings can be seen as having paid the plaintiff the construction price equivalent to the amount of the promissory note, etc. of this case, according to the following circumstances, the non-party company can be deemed as having paid the plaintiff the construction price. Thus, the construction price for this portion shall not be subject to a deduction of the bad debt tax amount.

① In the event that the non-party company is liable for the construction cost of approximately KRW 11.2 billion against the Plaintiff, it appears that the representative director of the non-party company lent to the Plaintiff the instant promissory note, etc. equivalent to KRW 3.5 billion. The Plaintiff also borrowed the instant promissory note, etc. from the representative director of the non-party company to the non-party company and borrowed the amount equivalent to its face

It is difficult to expect repayment.

② The non-party company entered into accounts with the instant promissory note, etc. as the repayment of the credit purchase amount to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff also entered into accounts as the collection of the outstanding amount of construction work against the non-party company with the instant promissory note, etc. In response, it may be deemed that there was an error if the accounting was made only on one side of the non-party company or the Plaintiff. However, insofar as the non-party company and the Plaintiff entered into accounts as the payment of the Plaintiff’s construction work price with the instant promissory note

③ The Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s representative director deposited money in the account of DD.

Although it is alleged that the amount of the borrowed promissory note, etc. was repaid, it is difficult to conclude that the statement of the evidence No. 8-3, No. 11-1, and No. 2 alone paid the amount of the bill interest deposited in the accounts of the DD, and insofar as the Plaintiff and the EEE are deemed separate independent businessmen, it cannot be deemed that the money deposited in the accounts of the Plaintiff’s representative director EE individual is the repayment of the money borrowed by the Plaintiff.

④ In addition, the money deposited by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s representative EE in the account of DD and the amount equivalent to the face value of the Promissory Notes, etc. of this case.

⑤ Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Nonparty Company is only a formal executor, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Conclusion

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

(c)