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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of December 1, 2013 against the Plaintiff, the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of two years, the imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of two years, the imposition of the income earner, the notification of the change in income amount using the income amount as the OOO members, and the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year of 2011 as of December 2, 2013, respectively, revoked the part exceeding the OOO members.

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs the water supply and sewerage construction business at the OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong, Seoul.

B. On March 2011, the Plaintiff received each of the five copies of the purchase tax invoices for the second period of February 2011 from the non-party EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “E”), and deducted the input tax amount on the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount at the time of filing a return on the instant tax invoice for the pertinent taxable period (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”), and included the supply amount as deductible expenses at the time of filing a return on the instant tax invoice in the year 2011, in relation to the purchase of the materials.

C. From September 23, 2013 to November 3, 2013, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff. Considering that the instant tax invoice was a processed tax invoice received from data without real transaction, the relevant input tax amount is not deducted, and the sales cost is not included in deductible expenses, and the Plaintiff issued a notice of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff as a bonus (including the additional tax on the first half of December 1, 2013) and the additional tax on the second half of 2011, including the additional tax on the first half of 201, and the additional tax on the first half of 201 (including the additional tax) and the additional tax on the second half of 2013. < Amended by Act No. 11618, Dec. 2, 2013; Act No. 11618, Dec. 1, 2013; Act No. 11608, Mar. 1, 2013>

D. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 18, 2014, but was dismissed on August 13, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8-1 to 7, Gap evidence 9-1 to 5, Gap evidence 11, 12, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff subcontracted most of the instant construction works to Nonparty FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”), and upon receipt of a tax invoice from D and EE confirmed that FF is a material supplier pursuant to the direct payment agreement with F, the Plaintiff confirmed the arrival of the relevant materials, and remitted the relevant materials directly to the two companies. As such, the instant tax invoice was based on the real transaction, and the Plaintiff completed the instant construction by using the materials so provided. Therefore, since the instant tax invoice is based on the real transaction, the Defendant’s correction of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant tax invoice was not a processing transaction, and thus, the Plaintiff’s disposition of imposing corporate tax and the notice of the amount of income should be revoked by unlawful alteration.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff, as a contractor, did not participate in the instant construction work at all, was bound to pay the price in trust with FF intent to believe that D and EE actually supplied materials. Therefore, there exists a justifiable reason to exempt the portion of the penalty tax in the instant disposition, and there is no possibility that the remaining portion of the notice of change in the corporate tax and income amount is able to be held liable to the Plaintiff. In this respect, the Defendant’s disposition of this case should be revoked in

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice was based on the real transaction

If a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared by a tax authority without a real transaction, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost and the other party to the payment of the expenses alleged by a taxpayer has been proved to be false, a taxpayer who is easy to present all the data, such as keeping a book and evidence, regarding the fact that such expenses have been actually paid, need to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du20618, Dec. 11, 2014).

(10) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments on the instant case: ① D/O’s purchase price on the instant tax invoice, which was determined as material by the receipt of the KRW 1 to 2012, and was charged for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; ② D/O’s purchase of new materials, such as cement, sand, pipes, etc., corresponding to D/O’s purchase was not discovered; ③ D/O’s purchase of new materials, which was of an excessive structure compared to the purchase price, was 1 to 201, within 10,000, within 100,000,0000,0000 won was determined as 20,0000,000 won, and 20,0000 won was determined as 1 to 20,000,000 won, and 20,000 won was purchased on the date of the instant tax invoice.

In such a case, the Plaintiff must prove that he received materials from other suppliers than the suppliers on the tax invoice and paid the expenses. In this case, the Plaintiff’s statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 10 submitted by the Plaintiff in this case is insufficient to acknowledge such facts, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (the grounds for the issuance of a false tax invoice from D and EE is merely because the actor who received false tax invoices from D and E is not the Plaintiff, and it is not because the purchase was made in accordance with the tax invoice or that purchase was made from other suppliers equivalent to the purchase amount of the tax invoice).

2) As to the existence of legitimate cause and expectation

Under the tax law, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, as prescribed by the individual tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intent and negligence is not considered as administrative sanctions. On the other hand, such sanctions should be imposed with respect to nonperformance of obligations under the tax law unless there are justifiable grounds for not being able to mislead the taxpayer of his/her failure to perform his/her obligations, such as cases where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations, or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du230, Feb. 10, 2011).

With respect to this case, in full view of the following facts: (a) as an entrepreneur who was operated on July 1, 2004 by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff appears to have sufficiently known the importance of receiving normal purchase tax invoices for real transactions; (b) as long as the Plaintiff permits the issuance of tax invoices under his own name, the Plaintiff is also obligated to verify whether the entries of the said tax invoices coincide with the actual conditions; and (c) the Plaintiff did not express any effort to perform the said obligations in addition to the Plaintiff’s reliance on the subcontractor; and (d) the Plaintiff’s assertion on the absence of possibility for the said reasons cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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