2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 24, 2005, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract for construction work in the ○○ Factory General Rest (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with the period of construction fixed from November 24, 2005 to November 22, 2006, by setting the down payment of KRW 63,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 157,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 94,500,000, the remainder of KRW 94,500,000 (in the absence of any other indication, value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the period of construction from November 24, 2005 to January 22, 2006.

B. After doing so, the Plaintiff subcontracted the construction and the interior part of the said construction to the privateA, which operates the △△ interior.

C. On January 25, 2006, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice on November 24, 2005, the supply price of KRW 63,000,000, and ② on December 28, 2005, the supply price of KRW 157,50,000, and the supply price of KRW 157,50,000, and the privateAA issued a tax invoice on December 30, 2005, stating the supply price of KRW 29,00,00 to the Plaintiff.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff issued each tax invoice (the total amount of KRW 81,500,000, hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) with the supply price of KRW 28,500,000 on October 24, 2005, the supply price of KRW 10,000 on October 14, 2005, ② the supply price of KRW 28,50,000 on the supply date, ③ the supply price of KRW 30 on December 30, 2005, and ③ the supply price of KRW 43,00,000 on December 30, 2005, and filed a report on the necessary expenses of income in 205.

E. As of September 1, 2008, the Defendant decided and notified 34,293,010 won of global income tax for the year 2005 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the necessary expenses reported under each of the instant tax invoices constituted a processing transaction without real transactions (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the National Tax Service regarding the Defendant’s disposition of this case, and the National Tax Service dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on April 10, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each number No. 1), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After receiving a subcontract for the instant construction from △△ Construction, the Plaintiff again received each of the instant tax invoices from 167.00,000,000 won from 117,00,000 won (including value added tax) equivalent to 70% for the purpose of reporting income in 2005, and then demanded that the Plaintiff issue a purchase tax invoice of KRW 117,00,000 (including value added tax), but the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for KRW 29,00,000 on December 30, 2005. In order to report the actual input tax amount, the Plaintiff filed a purchase tax invoice of the instant tax invoice of KRW 81,50,000 from the company of △△△△ to return the actual input tax amount, but actually paid it to △△, which is unlawful for the instant disposition of imposition.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition imposing tax, the tax authority bears the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, as a matter of principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving that the tax invoice is false. However, it is proved that the tax invoice reported by the taxpayer was prepared falsely without real transactions by the defendant who is the tax authority, and thus, it is disputed whether it is an actual cost. If the taxpayer's purpose of use of the cost claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment have been proved to the extent that it is reasonable for the other party to the tax payment, it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, as to the actual cost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1

In light of the facts that the Plaintiff received each of the tax invoices of this case from 0,00,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,00 won for 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 0,00 won for 0,000 won for 20,00 won for 0,00 won for 0,000 won for 20,00 won for 0,00 won for 0,000 won for 20,00 won for 0,000 won for 0,00 won for 20,00 won for 20.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.