A. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant filed a claim for revocation of each disposition of KRW 00,000,000, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on January 2, 2017, and KRW 00,000,000, which was imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on January 2, 2017.

such portion shall be dismissed.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Each disposition of imposing KRW 00,00,000, value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the year 2015, corporate tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the business year 2014, corporate tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the business year 2015, and each disposition of imposing KRW 00,000,000 for the income amount for the year 2014, and each disposition of notifying changes in income amount for the year 200,000,000 for the income amount for the year 2015 is revoked.

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 6th to 3th 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense

The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal only on the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and notification of change in income amount among the disposition of this case, and since the disposition of imposition of value-added tax does not go through the procedure of the preceding trial, the lawsuit

B. Determination

1) In full view of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 9, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount among the dispositions in the instant case on April 3, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on August 28, 2017. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the disposition imposing value-added tax was also stated in the disposition in the instant case. However, according to each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff stated in the purport of seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount among the dispositions in the instant case in the purport of the request for appeal, and the Plaintiff spent the amount equivalent to the supply value of the tax invoice in the instant case as deductible expenses, regardless of whether the claim falls under a normal transaction under the Value-Added Tax Act with inducement of income, and thus, it is clear that the Plaintiff only recognized the supply value of the corporate tax in the instant case as deductible expenses, and thus, the Plaintiff made an appeal to revoke the disposition in the instant case or the judgment.

2) The main text of Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides for the necessary principle of transfer of administrative litigation concerning tax administrative litigation on the ground that administrative litigation against illegal disposition under Article 55 of the same Act cannot be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, notwithstanding Article 18(1), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act. However, in the case of tax administration, where two or more administrative dispositions for the same purpose are carried out in a phased and developmental process, and the tax authority changes the taxation disposition subject to such disposition during the proceeding of the tax litigation and the same administrative disposition is jointly related to the contents of the disposition, and where several persons are liable for the same obligation through the same administrative disposition, it is deemed that the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the National Tax Tribunal provided an opportunity to re-determine the basic and factual matters of the preceding disposition as when one of the persons liable for tax payment or the National Tax Tribunal has gone through legitimate procedures, and the taxpayer can also file a request for cancellation of tax disposition without going through the procedure of the preceding trial (see, 2005.4.7.

3) However, the imposition of value-added tax on the instant disposition is deemed to be false. The imposition of corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount are premised on the Plaintiff’s inclusion of the supply value of the instant tax invoice in deductible expenses separate from the falsity of the instant tax invoice. However, each of the above dispositions is related to whether there was a supply of goods or services, such as the content of the instant tax invoice. However, even if the Plaintiff is deemed legitimate in the instant lawsuit, even if the instant tax invoice is based on so-called disguised transaction, it is reasonable that the Plaintiff spent the amount equivalent to the supply value and included it in deductible expenses, and thus, it is reasonable that the imposition of corporate tax and the notice of change in income amount were to be included in deductible expenses. Accordingly, the requirements for each disposition are different. The Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax on the instant tax administrative litigation are different from each other. As such, even if several kinds of taxes were imposed on the same source of tax, each of the above dispositions should be deemed to be separate from each other, and thus, it should be deemed to be unlawful.

4) Meanwhile, even if the Plaintiff presumed the imposition of value-added tax on the instant disposition lawful, the Plaintiff did not have awareness that the Plaintiff would deduct input tax from the input tax amount under a false tax invoice and that the issuer would evade the liability for value-added tax by reporting and paying value-added tax, etc. excluding the output tax amount under the tax invoice. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts that the imposition of value-added tax on the instant disposition is unlawful. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedure as to the imposition of value-added tax on both the principal tax and the penalty tax. Therefore,

3. Determination as to the lawfulness of the disposition of imposition of corporate tax and notification of changes in income amount among the dispositions in this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From the second half of 2014 to the first half of 2015, the Plaintiff accepted four construction works ordered by AAAA (hereinafter referred to as "AA"), completed the construction work by being supplied human resources and materials from BB, with materials from CCC, and paid KRW 00,000 to BB (DD), and KRW 00,000 to CCC, respectively. Therefore, the instant gold account statement is not prepared without real transaction, and even if the instant tax invoice was based on so-called disguised transaction, it does not result from so-called processing transaction, and thus, the supply price of the instant tax invoice shall be included in deductible expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 5th to 7th end of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except that part of the reasoning is as follows.

(1) "Receipt" of the amount of money in the column for "whether to accept it" in the table stated on the seventh highest order of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The following is added: "However, in the tax invoice dated 31, 2015, the amount of money will be claimed".

(2) "Person who receives (DBB)" column in the table stated in the seventh interruption of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be construed as "0,000,000" and "0,000,000" as "0,000,000" respectively.

D. Determination

1) If a tax invoice on a part of the expenses 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 expense and the other party to the payment of the expenses claimed by the taxpayer has been proved to the extent that it is reasonable for the taxpayer to have the other party to the payment thereof, the taxpayer who is easy to present all the materials, such as the account book keeping and evidence, should prove that such expenses have been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 201Du28076, Apr. 28, 2011).

2) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged as above and the evidence as seen earlier, it is deemed that the instant tax invoice was prepared in falsity without a real transaction. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to prove that the instant tax invoice was actually paid for a disguised transaction other than the so-called processing transaction and the cost equivalent to the value of supply was actually paid.

A) EE for the representative of the CCC does not provide goods or services to the Plaintiff, including a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 000,000,000 (total two copies) for the Plaintiff, although there is no supply of goods or services.

It was found guilty of having issued sales tax invoices in an amount equivalent to KRW 0,00,000,00 for a total amount of 0,000 won. As long as a criminal judgment became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance to deem it difficult to employ a factual determination of the above criminal judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424, Nov. 26, 199). However, CCC was a company whose main business is the manufacturing business, and did not have any facilities to manufacture taxation. ② CCC issued 0,000,000 won to 1, 2055, without receiving purchase tax invoices from 200,000,000 won to 200,000 won, and the Plaintiff paid CCC’s total amount of KRW 10,000,000,000 to 30,000,000 won, and 300,000,000 won and 30,000.

In full view of the fact that the CCC paid a total of KRW 297,600,000 from August 13, 2015 to January 21, 2016, etc., it can be recognized that a tax invoice equivalent to KRW 00,000,000 issued to the Plaintiff among the instant tax invoices, such as the details of the criminal judgment finalized with respect to EE, has been falsely prepared without real transactions.

B) Notwithstanding the absence of the fact of the supply of goods or services, EO, the actual operator of BB, was concluded a criminal case where: (a) he/she was accused of the fact that he/she issued the sales tax invoice equivalent to KRW 0,000,000,000, including the supply price of the Plaintiff, and died during the investigation; and (b) he/she was found guilty of the judgment of conviction against OO; (c) although the judgment of conviction was not finalized, EO was found to have been issued on December 24, 2014 (the supply price of KRW 00,00,000) among the tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff; and (d) EO’s representative, EO received from 200,000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 2010,

(3) From October 20, 2014 to January 31, 2015, the Plaintiff received various goods or services, such as the supply of CCTV systems from the BB from the BB, and BB received KRW 00,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and despite the issuance of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff claiming KRW 30,000,000, the Plaintiff paid to BB by March 16, 2015 is merely KRW 00,000,000 and there is a big difference between the supply value or receipt of the said tax invoice (the amount paid by the Plaintiff is 0,000,000,000 won and KRW 30,000,000,000 from the 20,0000,000 won, 200,0000,000 won, 200,000,000 won, 200,000,000 won.)

3) Comprehensively considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 15, 17, and 18, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant tax invoice was arising from a disguised transaction other than so-called processing transaction, and that the cost equivalent to the value of supply was actually paid.

A) According to each of the above evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff was performing a subcontracted construction work from AA. However, insofar as the instant tax invoice is deemed to have been drafted on the ground that it was without a real transaction, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff used materials and human resources equivalent to the value of supply of the instant tax invoice for the pertinent business year in relation to the said construction work and actually disbursed specific

B) The Plaintiff asserts that the purchase of materials and human resources must be acknowledged in the pertinent business year because the Plaintiff did not have any materials to carry out the construction work on the Plaintiff’s statement of financial position. However, it is difficult to believe the Plaintiff’s arbitrary statement of financial position, etc., which the Plaintiff prepared during the pertinent business year, and the Plaintiff cannot recognize a large amount of expenses as losses solely with the confirmation or abstract materials that can easily be created by the persons related to the preparation of the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the Plaintiff should submit a detailed book-keeping and objective evidence as to the fact that the expenses have been actually paid, and it is difficult to see that such evidence has

C) The Plaintiff and its representative, even though they were not subject to criminal punishment on the receipt of false tax invoices by the Plaintiff and this is not sufficient to recognize the value of supply of the instant tax invoices as actual costs solely for these reasons (In conclusion, according to the Plaintiff and its representative’s statement of evidence No. 17, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff and its representative were in a state of temporary suspension of indictment for the purpose of investigating the Korea-OO, and the Plaintiff and its representative were found to have been convicted of having received the instant tax invoices on the ground that the act of receiving the instant tax invoices, which are false, constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch Decision 2018Da1076, Apr. 18, 2019)).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax in the instant case is unlawful, and thus, the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court is unfair on the ground that it is so unfair, and thus, it is so modified as above.

(Attached Form)

Relevant statutes

【National Tax Basic Act

Article 56 (Relation with Other Acts)

(2) Notwithstanding the main sentence of Article 18 (1), (2) and (3) of the Administrative Litigation Act, any administrative litigation against any illegal disposition prescribed in Article 55 shall not be filed without going through a request for evaluation or adjudgment under this Act and a decision thereon: Provided, That this shall not apply to any administrative litigation against any disposition taken by a disposition agency following a decision on re-audit of the proviso to Article 65 (1) 3 (including cases applied mutatis mutandis in Article 81).

(1) Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 16008, Dec. 24, 2018)

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of a corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided for in this Act.

(2) Losses referred to in paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses incurred in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as ordinary or directly related to profit, except as otherwise expressly prescribed by this Act and other Acts.

(3) Losses distributed under Article 100-18 (1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall be deemed deductible expenses referred to in paragraph (1).

(4) Matters necessary for the scope and types of losses under the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 6 (Settlement and Correction)

(3) The head of a tax office or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) on the basis of

Provided, That where it is impossible to calculate the amount of income by books or other documentary evidence for reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, it may be estimated, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(1) Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26981, Feb. 12, 2016)

§ 104. Estimation, determination and revision

(1) "Grounds prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 66 (3) of the Act means any of the following cases:

1. Where necessary account books or documentary evidence in the calculation of the income amount do not exist or important parts are incomplete or false;

§ 106. Disposal of income

(1) The amount included in the calculation of earnings under Article 67 of the Act shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the following subparagraphs. The same shall also apply to non-profit domestic corporations

1. Where the amount included in the calculation of earnings has clearly leaked out of the company, the dividends, bonuses from the disposition of profits, other income, and other outflow from the company under the following items according to the person to whom they accrue: Provided, That where the accrual is unclear, it shall be deemed that it has been reverted to the representative (where an executive who is not a minority shareholder, etc. and persons with a special relationship under Article 43 (8) holds at least 30/100 of the total number of stocks issued or total amount invested in the relevant corporation and actually controls the operation of the corporation, he/she shall be deemed the representative, and where there are at least two representatives, de facto representative shall be the representative;

【Enforcement Rule of Corporate Tax Act

§ 54. Representative bonus disposal method

In the application of the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Decree, where it is obvious that the representative has been reverted to each representative in the business year when the representative has been changed, the amount shall be disposed of separately from each representative, and where the reversion is not clear, it shall be calculated separately according to the number of days of service period and disposed