Review-department -2015-0053 (Law No. 14, 2015)

It is difficult to regard the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice because the supply of production facilities was agreed to successively implement KimB, the Plaintiff, and EE Energy.

Considering the circumstances leading up to the establishment of the Plaintiff, the contents of the contract between the Plaintiff and EE Energy, the source of financing and movement, and the details of the tax invoice and the export declaration completion certificate, the Plaintiff, EE Energy, and KimD agreed to successively implement the supply of the production facilities concluded by EED with EE Energy, the Plaintiff, and EE Energy. In accordance with this agreement, the Plaintiff supplied the EE Energy with the facilities of a tobacco plant from ED.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2015Guhap95444 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AAA Corporation

BB Director of the Tax Office

on 01 April 2016

on April 29, 2016

1. The Defendant’s disposition of KRW O of value-added tax for the first year of 2010 rendered to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014 shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

As set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

On November 3, 2014, the Defendant issued a tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff fromCC Machinery (representative KimD) on March 3, 2010 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) to the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) is a tax invoice different from the fact, and deemed that the amount of input tax was deducted based on the said tax invoice as an unfair deduction, and thus, issued a correction and notification of the OO of value-added tax for the first period of January 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Conclusion of a contract for the establishment of a coal plant

On December 23, 2009, the EE Energy Limited Corporation established in GGstan (hereinafter referred to as the "EE Energy") is to be supplied with a tobacco production facility from KimD on December 23, 2009, and the total contract amount is only KRW O0,000,000 among the contracts amount is to be converted into the investment amount of the company operated by EE Energy (paragraph 1 of the contract), and KimD is to supply the production facility of daily production O0,000 (paragraph 2 of the contract).

On December 30, 2009 and January 18, 2010, the EE Energy Representative Fund paid KRW 00 million to KimD, and on January 26, 2010, KimD sent O of the base of the production of tobacco to GGstan.

2) The Plaintiff’s establishment and conclusion of a contract for the establishment of a tobacco plant

On February 10, 2010, the Plaintiff was established to attract active overseas investment along with procedural issues, such as the transfer of the foreign customs clearance of goods and the transfer of proceeds, and became a shareholder of EE Energy (E Energy RepresentativeF became the Plaintiff’s auditor).

On February 10, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to set up a daily production O0,000 facility in EE energy.

(iii)payment of the price and supply of le-electrics;

On February 18, 2010, KimD returned KRW 00 million to the DaF, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 00 million to KimD on February 18, 2010 and KRW 00 million on March 5, 2010.

On the other hand, on March 4, 2010, KimD supplied a lux gas production lux, and the export declaration is written as the "Plaintiff", the "CC machinery", and the "E Energy".

4) Lawsuits between EE Energy and KimD

In July 2010, EE Energy filed a claim against KimD for the payment of penalty on the ground that the production facilities supplied by KimD do not meet the standards, and that KimD independently took place in GGstan unlike the agreement.

On February 8, 2011, KimD paid O0,000 won to EE Energy and gave up the investment O0,000 won under the initial arrangement(Seoul Central District Court OOsOOOs).

5) Issuance of the instant tax invoice and revised tax invoice

On March 3, 2010, KimD issued the instant tax invoice with the supply value as KRW O0,000 to the Plaintiff, but on December 19, 201, issued the zero-rate revised tax invoice that reduces the supply value as OO won, and filed a revised return that reduces the sales value from OO0,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 2 to 13, Eul's 2 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was established to solve procedural problems, such as transfer of customs in the name of the Plaintiff or transfer of proceeds, and entered into an agreement for the establishment of the EE energy and coal plant. The contents of the agreement are the same as the annual establishment contract for the EE energy and for which KimD entered into between the Plaintiff and the EE energy. KimD re-returns KRW 100 million, which is the cost of the facility received from the EE energy, to the EE Energy. After receiving KRW 00 million from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff issued the instant tax invoice and supplied the Plaintiff with the supply price of KRW 00,000,000,000,0000,000 won, and then supplied the Plaintiff with the OO.S. factory supply. At the time, the Plaintiff appears to have entered into an export declaration completion agreement with the Plaintiff as “CC machine,” and the Plaintiff’s export price as “Plaintiff.” In full view of the developments leading up to the establishment of the Plaintiff’s Kim Energy, the details of the contract between the Plaintiff and Kim Energy, the source and the 200.

Meanwhile, KimD appeared as a witness in this court and did not know the Plaintiff, and concluded with EE Energy, and provided EE Energy with leaps, so the instant tax invoice was testified to the effect that it is false (the same purport is similar to KimD's vindication or door reply prepared at the time of the investigation by the competent tax office). However, as seen earlier, KimD returned the price received from EE energy, and received the full amount (O0 million won) from the Plaintiff, and its exports were also made in the name of the Plaintiff. In addition, KimD issued a revised tax invoice that reduces the supply price on December 19, 201 to OE as a penalty. This is difficult to view that KimD issued the revised tax invoice to the Plaintiff on December 19, 201 due to the fact that KimD did not directly pay O0,000 won to the Plaintiff as a penalty for breach of duty, and that the reduced amount was also the establishment of KimD's payment or waiver of KimD's payment of charges under the Plaintiff's name or penalty for breach of duty.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which was made on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.