Daejeon District Court 2009Guhap2049 (2010.07)

Cho High 208 Before 2575 (Ob. 27, 2009)

Different tax invoices received from the name of a construction business and the double appropriation of costs;

Where a building is newly constructed by borrowing the name of a construction business and a nominal owner receives a tax invoice from the nominal owner, it falls under the false tax invoice, and the act of receiving the processed purchase tax invoice by making a double contract amount and clarifying the construction amount, and returning the difference in the construction price to the passbook in a special relationship with the representative director constitutes the

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. ① The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 124,627,280 won for the first term of February 1, 2008, value-added tax of 206 for the second term of 2006, value-added tax of 322,783,330 won for the second term of 206, value-added tax of 282,534,030 won for the first term of 207, and ② the disposition of notice of change of income amount on February 11, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case is in accordance with No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The part of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except that the part of Article 18(2) of the first instance judgment is used as follows:

2. Part of Article 15 and 16 (2) of the judgment of the court of first instance which has been written after the dismissal.

2) As to the portion of 460,212,395 won collected by the representative director

The plaintiff asserts that the amount equivalent to KRW 460,000,000,000 was deposited in the passbook of the plaintiff company as much as the representative director's amount was deposited in the passbook of the plaintiff company, and that the amount was used for the business of the plaintiff company, and that the provisional payment and provisional payment are merely a virtual account and they should be processed according to the actual nature of the future without settlement of accounts. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the provisional payment and provisional payment were entered in the ledger as the provisional payment and they were not disclosed

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amount equivalent to KRW 460 million out of the amount of income disposed of by the Defendant out of the company in 2006 was deposited as the Plaintiff’s passbook and used as the company’s operating fund. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.