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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 17,025,194 on May 6, 2013 against Plaintiff Kim 00 of value-added tax for the second term of 2012, and the disposition of refusal to refund KRW 31,637,832 on August 27, 2013 against Plaintiff 50 of value-added tax for the second term of 2012 is revoked.

A. The plaintiff 00 operated the manufacturing business of steel structure and real estate rental business in the trade name of 00 -00 -00 - 000 - 000 - from 000 - 000 -,000 -, and the plaintiff Kim 00, which was the plaintiff 00 - 00 - from 00 - 00 - 000 - - 00 - BB industry, respectively.

B. On December 28, 2011, with the permission for the new construction of a factory building in the name of the Plaintiff Kim 00,000, on September 26, 201, the Plaintiff 200 completed the construction by concluding a contract for the construction of a factory building (hereinafter “instant building”) with the construction cost of KRW 318,900,00 (including value-added tax) between the Plaintiff Kim 00 and the construction cost of December 28, 2011. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff 20 completed the registration of initial ownership in the name of Plaintiff Kim 00 on January 24, 2013. On January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued with the supply price of KRW 289,909,091 and the tax invoice of KRW 3731,3736,371, including the supply price of the instant building issued by the Plaintiff Kim 00 (hereinafter “tax invoice”).

C. On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff Kim 00: (a) deducted the amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice from the input tax amount; and (b) filed a final tax return on the second quarter of 2012; and (c) applied for the refund of value-added tax by deducting the said amount as the input tax amount on the 2

D. The Defendant confirmed that Plaintiff Kim 00 received the instant tax invoice under his/her name even though it is not the actual owner of the instant building. On May 13, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deducted Plaintiff Kim 00 from the input tax amount; (b) imposed an additional tax on Plaintiff Kim 16,339,416 due to the failure to submit the list of total tax invoices; and (c) under the decision of the Tax Tribunal, 15,194, deducted the general input tax amount from KRW 950,194; and (d) subsequently, deducted the additional tax from KRW 15,843,794.

(C) the sum of value added tax plus 18,471,010 won (after that, the Tax Tribunal’s decision as described in paragraph (f) below is made.

Pursuant to this, it imposed and notified the general purchase tax amount of KRW 950,194 after deducting the general purchase tax amount of KRW 17,025,194 and then reducing the additional tax amount of KRW 17,025,194 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

E. Accordingly, on June 27, 2013, Plaintiff 50 filed a claim for rectification of value-added tax for the second period of 2012 with the purport of seeking refund on the grounds that the actual business operator should have deducted the input tax amount related to the tax invoice of this case. However, on August 27, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for rectification on the ground that the purchase tax invoice of this case was a tax invoice on the grounds that some of the requisite entries are different from the facts (hereinafter referred to as the “instant refusal disposition,” and the “each disposition of this case” is referred to as the “each disposition of this case”).

F. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 17, 2013, but on July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff.

In 2012, the general input tax amount of 950,194 was all dismissed except for the part that the general input tax amount of 950,194 is to be deducted.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including each number in the case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense against the plaintiff Kim 00's claim

A. Summary of this defense

The Defendant filed a petition for trial on September 17, 2013, even though Plaintiff Kim 00 had received a notice of the instant disposition from May 6, 2013 to 90 days from the date of receipt of the notice of the instant disposition, on which the Plaintiff Kim 00 filed a petition for objection, examination, or adjudication after the due date. As such, Plaintiff Kim 00’s petition of this case is unlawful without going through lawful pre-trial proceedings

B. Determination

The Framework Act on National Taxes provides for a request for a review and a request for a trial on the method of filing a tax assessment, and provides that a request for review and a request for a trial may be filed to the head of the competent tax office, etc. prior to that determination. Whether a request for objection constitutes a request for a review or a request for a trial is not necessarily based on the name thereof, but rather on the substance thereof, if the tax authority’s objection against the tax imposition disposition contains the purport of objection against the tax imposition disposition, it is reasonable to deem that such objection constitutes an objection under the above Act and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu

After the plaintiff Kim 00 was notified of the disposition of this case on May 13, 2013, the plaintiff Park 00 issued a request for the correction of value-added tax for the defendant on June 27, 2013. According to the above evidence, the plaintiff Park 1 trade name: 00 industry name: 00, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200, 300, 60, 200, 30, 60, 60, 60, 30, 20, 100, 200, 10, 200, 20, 30,000, 20, 10,000, 30,000, 20,000, 10,000,000,00,00,00,00,00.

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

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) Plaintiff 50

Article 16 (1) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that where the registration number of the recipient is falsely entered, "the registration number of the recipient of the goods or services" shall be interpreted as the case where the false registration number of the recipient of the goods or services is entered. Thus, where the goods or services are received under another person's name after borrowing the business operator's name as stated in this case, and the purchase tax invoice is delivered under the same name, it shall not be deemed a false tax invoice. Even under the General Rule 22-0-1 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Application of the Value-Added Tax Act to the above-mentioned business operator], if the tax invoice is corrected for the above-mentioned business operator who registered his business and paid the value-added tax, the input tax invoice issued under another person's name shall be deducted from the output tax amount of the above-mentioned business operator under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the rejection disposition in this case is unlawful.

2) Plaintiff Kim 00

In sum, when Plaintiff Kim 00 and Plaintiff Park 00 filed a value-added tax return, Plaintiff Kim 00 did not have filed a return of the amount of the value-added tax payable or an excess return of the amount of the refundable tax amount, and there was no fraud or other unlawful act under Article 3(6) of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (amended by Act No. 11613, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter “former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act”).

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing penalty tax on Plaintiff Kim 00 by adding KRW 15,843,794 (i.e., penalty tax for failure to submit a list of total tax invoices + KRW 12,65,132 + penalty tax for failure to submit a list of total tax invoices + KRW 12,65,132 + penalty tax for failure to submit a list of total tax invoices + KRW 24,8799) on the premise that the instant disposition imposing penalty tax is unlawful, under the premise that the Plaintiff Kim 00 under Article 47-3(2)2 (a) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 12162, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter referred to as the “former Framework Act on National Taxes”) was filed.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the instant refusal disposition

We examine whether the input tax amount under the tax invoice of this case should be deducted as the input tax amount of the Plaintiff Gangwon-do, the actual business operator.

Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and Article 16 (1) 2 of the same Act provides that "the registration number of the person to whom the tax invoice is supplied as one of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice." However, Article 60 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24359, Feb. 15, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act") provides that the necessary entry items of the tax invoice may be deducted from the other necessary entry items or discretionary entry items of the tax invoice in question if the transaction of the tax invoice is confirmed by considering the facts that the necessary entry items of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the plaintiff 20 under the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, which provides for a new tax invoice under the name of the plaintiff 2- the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's strong 00's assertion that the tax invoice of this case was not written differently from the fact is no different from the fact.

2) Determination on the instant disposition

Article 47-3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the amount shall be the penalty tax in any of the following cases, notwithstanding Article 47-3 (1) of the same Act, and subparagraph 2 of the same Article provides that the amount of value-added tax, individual consumption tax, traffic, energy, environment tax and liquor tax shall be underreported, or the amount of tax to be paid is overreported, or the amount of tax shall be overreported. "Cheating" refers to fraudulent or other unlawful acts prescribed by Presidential Decree (Article 26-2 (1) 1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes); "Fraud or other unlawful acts" referred to in Article 12-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 3 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act mean any active act falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to impose and collect taxes, and prepares and receives false evidence or false documents (Article 3 (6) 2 of the former Punishment of Tax Evaders Act), no intentional act or false statement (Article 5).

In light of the above provisions, the plaintiff Kim 00 received the tax invoice of this case from the person who was supplied with the certificate of completion of development activities, construction work contract, etc. prepared as if he newly constructed the building of this case, and made a final return and application for refund of value-added tax for the second period of 2012, in order that the plaintiff Kim 00 actually did not bear development charges even after the plaintiff Cho Y0 newly constructed the building of this case. This constitutes an unfair underreporting due to the acts such as "the preparation and receipt of false evidence or false document" or "the intentional tax invoice" under the former Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the plaintiff Kim 00's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without merit.

(c)