Cho High Court Decision 2009Du1384 (Law No. 24, 2009)

Whether or not a tax invoice different from the facts related to interior works has been received

Since it is judged that he entered into a contract for interior works directly with A related to interior works, and received a tax invoice from B, and applied for early refund, it constitutes a false tax invoice.

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

46 46 46 46 46 46 48

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 55,921,800 on January 23, 2009 against the Plaintiffs on January 23, 2009 shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고들은 ◇◇시 ●●구 ♤♤동 977 ■■■■타워 801호에서 'DDDD'(이하 '이 사건 사업장'이라 한다)이라는 상호로 기타주점업을 영위하고 있는 사업자이다.

B. The Plaintiffs received a tax invoice of KRW 370,000,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from GGG Entertainment, Inc. (hereinafter “GGG Entertainment”) in relation to the interior interior interior interior interior interior of the instant business establishment during the first taxable period of January 2008, and subsequently deducted the said amount from the output tax amount by deeming it as the input tax amount and filed a return of early refund of value-added tax.

C. In accordance with the above early refund declaration, the Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiffs directly concluded a contract for construction with JJ Construction; and (b) based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false, the Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount; and (c) issued the instant disposition to the Plaintiffs on January 23, 2009, imposing value-added tax of KRW 55,921,80 for the first term portion of 2008 on the Plaintiffs.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1, Eul 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiffs' principal

Plaintiff Yang K entered into a contract with GGN Entertainment regarding the interior interior interior of the instant workplace, and GGN Entertainment entered into a subcontract with JJ Construction and a subcontract with the JJ. The Plaintiffs entered into a normal contract with the construction contractor and received the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that both JJ Construction around February 2008 and JJJ Construction directly concluded a contract for the construction of indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the workplace. Accordingly, the instant disposition is lawful and the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

① At the time of the Defendant’s on-site confirmation upon the Plaintiff’s application for early refund of value-added tax, both JJ Construction explained the construction cost, etc. from the JJ Construction’s new PP with respect to the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior installation of the instant establishment. However, there was no written estimate or contract, and at the time of filing a value-added tax return, the Plaintiff paid KRW 32,000,000 to the JJ Construction, and the Plaintiff YangK received a tax invoice of KRW 320,00,000 in the name of GG Entertainment Entertainment for which the representative director is the representative director, and again issued the tax invoice of KRW 370,00,000 in the GG Entertainment from the GG Entertainment. In addition, the NewP of the JJD Construction and delivery of the tax invoice of KRW 370,00 in the future between DD and the two presidents, the president of the instant establishment, and the Plaintiff’s submission of the final tax invoice of KRW 300,000,200,300.

② At the time of the Defendant’s on-site confirmation and the time of review following the Plaintiff’s request for pre-assessment review, the Plaintiffs are not required to submit the contract on the interior works of the instant workplace. After the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs submitted each construction contract (Evidence A6 and 7) and written estimates (Evidence A8) between both KK and GG Entertainment, GG Entertainment, and JJJ Construction. In light of the following, the Plaintiffs’ respective statements of both KK and newPP and the Plaintiffs did not submit the construction contract regarding the instant workplace, and in particular, the construction contract document of evidence A 6 is written only on the aggregate amount with the parties, without stating the content on the date of commencement or period of the construction works. In light of the above, each of the above evidence No. 6 through No. 8 is believed as they are.

③ The Plaintiffs asserted that GG Entertainment entered into a subcontract of the Corporation with the JJ Construction and the instant workplace, and that the JJ Construction directly paid KRW 150,000,000 to the JJ Construction. However, the Plaintiffs failed to submit specific financial data related thereto. However, each of the above receipts was submitted only when each of the above receipts did not indicate the recipient’s name, and it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of payment as alleged by the Plaintiffs. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that: (a) from the mid of February 2, 2008, the JJ Construction, the actual representative of the JJ Construction, and (b) the KimLL, who was working as the site manager of the said workplace, testified that the instant workplace had received the construction cost from the Plaintiff Yang KK; and (b) that it was not known that both Plaintiff KK and the instant workplace had concluded the instant contract between both Plaintiffs 11 and 13; and (c) it appears that both Plaintiff KK and the instant workplace had not been given the testimony between the two parties to the instant contract.

④ In addition, the Plaintiffs received the tax invoice of KRW 370,000,000 from GG Entertainment and applied for early refund of the value-added tax in this case. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs paid KRW 370,000,000 to GG Entertainment as stated in the said tax invoice.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.