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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 28, 2008 to September 20, 2008, the Plaintiff, a corporation running electricity and fire fighting construction business, received 12 copies of tax invoices (309,891,164 won for the total value of value added tax on the supply value; hereinafter referred to as “tax invoice of this case”) which amounting to 281,719,240 won (the total value of value added tax on the supply value is 309,891,164 won for the total value added tax; hereinafter referred to as “tax invoice of this case”) from the output tax amount after deducting the amount equivalent to the above amount from the output tax amount, filed a return of value added tax for the first and second period portion in 2008 to the deductible expenses, and filed a return of corporate tax for the business year 2008.

B. During the period from February 17, 2009 to May 26, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office investigated the suspicion that the non-party company was self-paid (hereinafter referred to as the "tax investigation of this case"), and notified the Defendant of taxation data that the non-party company issued a tax invoice without real transaction from February 17, 2007 to May 26, 2008.

C. Accordingly, on March 1, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice different from the fact that it was issued without real transactions, and issued the Plaintiff the input tax amount deducted at the time of filing the return of the second quarter value-added tax on March 1, 2010, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the value-added tax amount of KRW 23,315,60 (including additional tax 10,181,532) for the first quarter of 2008 and value-added tax of KRW 25,865,100 for the second quarter of 208 (including additional tax 10,827,252) (including additional tax) for the second quarter of 208. The Defendant added the value of supply included in deductible expenses to deductible expenses at the time of filing the corporate tax return on March 2, 2010, notified the Plaintiff of the change in the amount of income for each of the instant taxable year (including additional tax 29,761,845 won).

D. On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on each of the instant dispositions, but was dismissed on September 9 of the same year.

[Ground for Recognition: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 18, Eul evidence 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff actually purchased materials required at a construction site, such as the construction of an apartment-type factory, from the non-party company to the non-party company's account, and then transferred the price to the non-party company's account, and thus, the plaintiff did not receive any return of the price. Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case that the tax invoice of this case

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Issuance of processing tax invoices by Nonparty Company

A) In 2007 and 2008, Nonparty Company purchased total amounting to KRW 8,489,000,000 from △△△ Korea Co., Ltd., and sold them to AAA trade, etc., which is an enterprise dealing with miscellaneous affairs, but did not issue a tax invoice on the sales amount equivalent to KRW 7.1 billion. As to the amount for which the tax invoice was not issued, Nonparty Company issued to △△△ Korea Co., Ltd., which did not issue the processed sales tax invoice.

B) In the event that the non-party company issues processing sales tax invoices, the non-party company received the proceeds from supply, including value-added tax, from the company that received the processing tax invoices, and returned the amount excluding value-added tax, out of the amount equivalent to the proceeds from supply deposited in the name of a third party that the processing contractor informed in order to conceal the processing sales.

C) In the event that ○○○○○○○○○○ Company’s business director receives a request for a request for the issuance of a processing tax invoice from a non-party company from the head of the site office of telecommunications construction, YB sent the business registration certificate by facsimile and sent the details of the issuance of the tax invoice by telephone to the non-party company by facsimile, and the non-party company sent the processed tax invoice to the non-party company by mail or facsimile.

D) If a telecommunications construction company transfers an amount equivalent to the proceeds from supply under the tax invoice to the account of a non-party company to obtain a processing tax invoice of the non-party company through OB, the non-party company remitted the amount calculated by deducting the value-added tax from the amount equivalent to the proceeds from supply that was remitted to the account of the EE, which is the wife of OB, Dong-B, DaD and OB, and the UCC, etc. withdrawn the paid money and returned it to the telecommunications construction company.

2) The instant tax investigation

After conducting the instant tax investigation, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the fact that the FF actually runs the non-party company in the name of Y under the name of Y and received the transaction payment from the non-party company in the name of the non-party company in collusion with the FF and his wife, and then used the borrowed account of family members, employees, etc. and returned the transaction. From January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the fact that the processing transaction was disguised through the real transaction. From January 31, 2006 to December 31, 208, 100 won was issued to the non-party 42 and issued a tax invoice of KRW 8,311,00,000 to the non-party 44 companies other than ○○ Electrical, and filed a complaint with the investigation agency as materials without any real transaction amounting to KRW 7,02,00,000.

3) Criminal trials, etc.

A) On February 12, 2010, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutor’s Office issued a disposition of suspending prosecution against the non-party company in relation to the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by Non-Party Company, DamageG, and HaH, and issued a disposition of non-party company’s non-party company as to the loss of evidence and/or HaH on the ground that

B) On April 15, 201, in the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2010Kadan324 decided on April 15, 201, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a false list of the total supply price to the Plaintiff on April 25, 2008, as if the Plaintiff supplied the total supply price of KRW 29,997,240 to the Plaintiff on April 25, 2008, the Defendant submitted a false list of the total supply price to the Plaintiff, which is the representative director, in the name of the Plaintiff. On July 25, 2011, the Decision 201, stating the total supply price of KRW 101,343,500 as if the Plaintiff supplied the total supply price of KRW 101,343,500 as if the buyer were supplied with the goods to the Plaintiff, and 20 years’ imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years as if the total supply price was supplied to the Plaintiff.

4) Transactions between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company

A) From January 28, 2008 to September 20 of the same year, the Plaintiff received 309,891,164 tax invoice of this case from the non-party company for total supply amount of KRW 309,89,891,164. From March 7 to October 31 of the same year, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 309,896,200 to the account of the non-party company.

B) If the non-party company transferred the above money deposited to the HaH, Park K, MM, KimP, GP, Park RR, and SS account from March 12, 2008 to November 12, 2008, and then remitted the money totaling KRW 285,976,080 to the HaB's DongCC and YD's account, the UCC and YD returned it to the YU, the Director of the YU.

[Ground for Recognition: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Eul evidence 4-1 through 5, Eul evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 7, 8-1 through 3, Gap evidence 9 through 12, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, 7, 8, 12 through 15, 17, Eul evidence 19 through 32, Eul evidence 6, 9, 11, 18-1, 2, Eul evidence 10-1 through 5, Eul evidence 16-1 through 3, and the purport of whole pleadings]

D. Determination

1) If a tax invoice on a part of any of the costs reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely without real transactions by the Defendant, who is the tax authority, without real transactions, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost and the other party to the payment of the cost claimed by the taxpayer has been proved to the extent that it is reasonable for the taxpayer to believe that such cost has been actually paid, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the account book keeping and documentary evidence, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26,

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the non-party company issued a processed tax invoice to the same telecommunications company as the Plaintiff, who could not receive value-added tax because it failed to issue the tax invoice to the actual sales company. 84.07% of the tax invoice issued in 2008 is the processed tax invoice. ② If the non-party company issues the processed tax invoice to the Plaintiff through OB, the return method of the proceeds from the remittance is the same as the way of returning the proceeds from the remittance. ③ The plaintiff does not submit a detailed tax invoice to the Plaintiff on the ground that the non-party company received the processed tax invoice, including the document confirming quality inspection, photographing, and photographing, while the non-party company did not actually examine the material purchased from the non-party company. The non-party company received the above processed tax invoice to the Plaintiff through the non-party company’s account such as H, etc. In light of the fact that the non-party company received the above processed tax invoice, the non-party company received the above processed tax invoice from the non-party company 1 and the non-party 2.

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