Suwon District Court 2010Guhap3829 ( October 05, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Division 2010-0081 (Law No. 28, 2010)

the supplier of the tax invoice to which the tax invoice was issued may be entered differently from the fact.

Even though a service supplier made a decision that the service supplier does not regard it as false sales, the supplier who received the service is deemed to be in breach of the good faith principle, and thus, the disposition of non-deduction of input tax amount is deemed to be false, but it is difficult to see that there was a public opinion statement, and that there was no act of trust and trust in the name of the opinion,

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Nu15017 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

XX

Head of the High Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap3829 Decided April 5, 2011

September 23, 2011

November 1, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 26,558,460 on September 24, 2010 on which the defendant sent the final demand note shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons to be stated in this decision are as follows, and this Court cites the judgment of the first instance except for the supplement of the judgment of the first instance as follows.

2. Parts in supplement of the decision of the court of first instance (the part concerning the grounds of appeal No. 2-c. of the judgment of the court of first instance);

While the Plaintiff was at the trial, even though it was recognized that the Defendant did not regard the receipt of the construction cost from the provision of the construction service with respect to the ○○ Fire Fighting Electricity, which is the client of the instant construction project, as sales different from the fact, the Plaintiff, who is the counterparty of the instant construction project, was in violation of the principle of trust and good faith. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition against the Plaintiff, which is the counterparty of the instant construction project, was against the principle of trust and good faith. According to the evidence No. 3, for the ○○ Fire Fighting Electricity (representative A), which was traded with the Plaintiff in relation to the instant construction project, by deeming that the Defendant offered construction services to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant construction, and received the construction cost from the Plaintiff’s agent, and that it is not reasonable to deem the instant disposition as sales different from the fact. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of the evidence No. 7 and the overall purport of the pleading, it cannot be deemed that

A. In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority’s act in tax law relations, the tax authority must give taxpayers a public opinion that is the object of trust, and there is no reason attributable to the taxpayer for the taxpayer to believe that the tax authority’s expression of opinion is justifiable, and the taxpayer must act in trust and what is the taxpayer, and the tax authority should make a disposition against the above expression of opinion, thereby infringing on the taxpayer’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du7741, Oct. 29). However, in this case, it is difficult to view that the Defendant in this case, on the grounds as seen earlier, notified the above company that the above company would not regard the construction price received from the Plaintiff on the ground of the above fact as a sale different from the fact, and on the premise that the principle of trust and good faith is applied. Even if the Plaintiff considered it as a public opinion under the name of a family affairs, it still does not meet the requirements of trust and good faith to the extent that the Plaintiff did not have committed the act in good faith.

B. The judgment of the Defendant on the above ○○ Fire Fighting Electricity was focused on whether there was a disguised transaction related to the sales amount of value-added tax for the above business entity (see the contents of evidence No. 3). The actual fact that ○○ Fire Fighting Electricity offered construction services to the Plaintiff through MF is that at least the substance of providing construction services existed, and thus, it seems that there was no disguised transaction. If there are these circumstances, the Defendant’s notice on the ○○ Fire Fighting Electricity is not necessarily incompatible with the disposition of this case issued on the ground that it is different from the fact by the supplier of the tax invoice, not for false processing sales, rather than for false processing sales. Meanwhile, considering that the Plaintiff and the ○○ Fire Fighting Electricity Fighting Co., Ltd. verified the signatures of each Plaintiff on March 30, 200 and the ○○ Fire Fighting Power Co., Ltd., Ltd., which were written on April 16, 2010, the Plaintiff’s signature and the ○○ Fire Fighting Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., as stated in the above 200000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.