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

A. The Plaintiffs, as a business proprietor operating a publicly notified telecom from 00 OOO-dong 00 to BB in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, an OO-dong 00 to OB, received two copies of tax invoices of KRW 000 from Non-Party DaD who runs the construction business in the name of “CCC Construction during the first taxable period of 2011 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”), and filed a return for early refund of value-added tax (preliminary return) for the first taxable year of 2011 after deducting the input tax amount stated in the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount. < Amended by Act No. 1075, Mar. 25, 2011; Act No. 10937, Apr. 25, 2011>

B. Around July 2011, the Defendant: (a) confirmed that Nonparty KimFF, who runs the construction business under the name of “EEE Construction,” as the result of the Defendant’s investigation, etc. into the transaction order related to the instant construction, was the actual implementer of the instant construction; and (b) on September 6, 2011, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiffs from leD constituted a false tax invoice; and (c) imposed and notified the instant tax invoice on September 6, 201 without deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, and imposed KRW 000,000,000,000, including additional tax on excess refund return (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 6, 2012, but were dismissed on June 15, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract for the instant construction with Kim FFF that operates a construction business, and entered into a contract for the instant construction project with the Kim EE EEF. However, at that time, the Plaintiffs came to know that the business registration of the EE EE construction was ex officio, and entered into a contract with the CCC Construction in a de facto marital relationship with the Kim FFF, and thereafter, the instant construction was actually carried out in the CCC Construction, and the instant tax invoice cannot be viewed as a false tax invoice.

2) Even if KimFF, not household leDD, supplied the instant construction services, considering the fact that at the time of the implementation of the instant construction, Han EE Construction was ex officio closed, the Plaintiffs entered into a new contract with leD, and that KimF and leD are de facto in a de facto marital relationship, and the Plaintiffs are parties to a trade in good faith.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In this case, the meaning that the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is nominal, and if there is any other person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs, shall be a taxpayer, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the tax law shall apply to the person to whom it actually belongs, and the cases where the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or supplied, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec.

B) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 1, and evidence Nos. 3 through 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① Around October 13, 2010, the Plaintiffs entered into the instant construction contract with the KimFF, and at the time of the implementation of the construction, the Korea EEF’s business was closed ex officio. Around January 5, 2011, apDD registered its business under the name of KimFF, and around that time, entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiffs for the instant construction contract with the period from October 14, 201 to March 31, 201, and entered the construction contract with the period from October 13, 201, respectively. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22426, Oct. 13, 2010>

② On February 28, 2011, the Plaintiffs received each tax invoice of KRW 00,000, the supply price of KRW 00, and KRW 000,000, the supply price of KRW 22 March 22, 201.

③ Around May 2011, the Plaintiff drafted a written confirmation to the effect that “EEEF had undertaken and completed the instant construction work and deposited the construction cost to the EE Construction KimFF,” upon receiving a tax investigation from the Masan Tax Office.”

④ On July 25, 2011, KimF also stated that he was actually performing all parts of the instant construction work from the removal to the end of the workplace upon being investigated as a suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

⑤ While being investigated on the same day as DaDDdo KimF, he was aware of the fact that he was in charge of accounting affairs in connection with the instant construction work, and that the contract was concluded when entering into the instant construction work, he did not attend at the time of entering into the contract, and he did not know that the construction contract was executed retroactively prior to the starting date of the CCC Construction Industry and the filing date of the business registration application, and that the Kim FF prepared and issued the instant tax invoice, and that he prepared and issued the construction contract document and the instant tax invoice by Kim FF.

6) The details of money deposited by the Plaintiff A in the account of KimF and KEE Construction from October 14, 201 to April 11, 2011 are as follows.

(Contents omitted)

C) Considering the above KimF, DoD, and Plaintiff A’s tax investigation into each of the above statements, the circumstances in which the instant official contract was made retroactively, and the deposit details of the construction cost, etc., it is reasonable to see the person who provided the construction services of the instant construction in the instant tax invoice as the leDF, not the leDF indicated as the supplier, and the testimony of Gap evidence 8-2 through 10, Gap evidence 9, and 10, and witness Kim FF alone is insufficient to reverse the above fact of recognition. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiffs from leD is deemed to be a tax invoice different from the facts stated falsely. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the plaintiffs are bona fide and without fault or not

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier listed on a tax invoice are not negligent in not knowing the fact that the supplier was not aware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, the actual supplier and the supplier are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount, and the person who received the tax shall prove that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the nominal name was above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) According to Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 6, and Eul evidence No. 8's evidence No. 2 through 10, Han E Construction was closed on September 14, 2010, and the plaintiffs and MaDD were subcontracted to other companies with the construction contract agreement signed on October 13, 2010, but it is insufficient to find that the plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that the tax invoice received from MaD was false, and that there was no other evidence to find otherwise. The plaintiffs did not appear to have been aware of the fact that MaD 1 was a de facto spouse of KimF, and that the plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that MaD 1's tax invoice was closed at the time of the closure of the construction contract, and that the plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that MaD 1's first tax invoice was closed at the time of the closure of the construction contract, and that the plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that MaD 1's real name and the duty to receive the MaD 1's evidence No. 3.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claims are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.