Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap2235 (No. 21, 2013)

Administrative or civil trials shall not be bound by the facts of non-prosecution disposition, but shall fully recognize the facts against the free evaluation by evidence.

Administrative or civil trials shall not be bound by the facts of non-prosecution disposition, but shall fully recognize the facts against the free evaluation by evidence.

2013Nu23487 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

AA General Construction Corporation

1. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office; 2. The director of the tax office:

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap2235 decided June 21, 2013

July 2, 2014

August 27, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim, purport of appeal and scope of judgment of this court

1. Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. ① Notice of the change in the amount of income stated in the attached list of the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on November 25, 2010; ② Disposition of corporate tax and value-added tax stated in the attached list of the defendant Cycheon Tax Office on December 1, 2010; ③ Disposition of imposition of value-added tax listed in the attached list of the defendant Cycheon Tax Office on December 1, 20

2. Scope of the judgment of this court;

In this case, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the defendants against the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on November 25, 2010 (2005 through 2008) and the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on December 1, 2010 (2005 through 2008) for the revocation of the imposition of the corporate tax and the value-added tax listed in the separate sheet as of December 1, 2010 by the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and the head of the Geumcheon Tax Office on December 1, 2010, the first instance court issued a ruling to dismiss all of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff did not file an appeal against the defendant's director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on the whole of the notification of the change in the amount of income as of November 25, 2010 and the notification of the change in the amount of income as of 2006. Accordingly, this part

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's assertion that is emphasized by the trial at the trial, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

The tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff from BB Construction Co., Ltd.,CC Construction Co., Ltd., DD Industry Development Co., Ltd., and EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “instant tax invoices”) are all paid in cash, etc., and are not constituting a false tax invoice. Even if this is a tax invoice different from the fact, the burden of proving this is imposed on the Defendants, who are the tax authorities. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone cannot be deemed to be sufficient to acknowledge that the instant tax invoice was false. Accordingly, the instant tax invoices were unlawful.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, it is sufficient to regard the issue as a tax invoice as a false tax invoice, and there is no reason to see otherwise even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was fully examined. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion in a different purport is groundless, and thus, it is not acceptable.

① While constructing apartment-type factories in each region, the Plaintiff provided a subcontract for part of the construction works to BB construction,CC construction, DD industry development, and EE companies, and received a tax invoice for construction cost payment. The instant tax invoice is part of the tax invoice received from the said four companies.

After receiving a false tax invoice by which the amount was appropriated in excess of the amount from the above four companies in 2007 and 2008, EF was found to have been personally used for the money deposited from the Plaintiff’s account as the construction cost, and was sentenced to the judgment of conviction on April 8, 201 as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201No101574 on July 8, 201 due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Tax) and the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. The above judgment was dismissed as Seoul High Court Decision 2011No1011 on July 8, 201, and the final appeal was withdrawn and finalized thereafter.

② The instant tax invoice is issued by the same four companies at the same time as the above criminal facts. Defendant Seoul Regional Tax Office determined that the instant tax invoice was false, and denied the relevant value-added tax and labor costs for four companies, including BB Construction, and imposed a penalty and penalty accordingly. The said companies did not dispute the instant tax invoice and paid the penalty and the penalty and penalty were fully paid.

③ In the course of a tax investigation, the said four companies related to the Plaintiff stated that the construction cost was paid in cash from the Plaintiff, but failed to specifically respond to the receipt of the payment of a large amount of cash by any means. In addition, the aforementioned four companies related to the tax return was not submitted at all objective evidence, such as financial materials verifying the payment of the amount in question, and materials verifying that the actual labor cost was paid to the labor workers, except in the original labor cost payment ledger prepared formally for the tax return or the deposit table for the company’

④ The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time, the Plaintiff paid the amount corresponding to the instant tax invoice with the cash’s provisional receipts due to the significant financial difficulties, and presented cash receipts and disbursements stating the same contents. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s financial situation in 2007 and 2008 was insufficient. However, there is no objective evidence, such as financial materials, which can verify that the amount was deposited with the Plaintiff even though the amount was a large amount of the provisional receipts and disbursements claimed by the Plaintiff, there is no objective evidence, such as financial materials, which can verify that the amount was deposited with the Plaintiff. Moreover, the source of the eF

⑤ In criminal cases against FF, it is true that he/she was subject to the disposition of non-prosecution on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in connection with the instant tax invoice. However, the administrative trial or civil trial is not bound by the fact of non-prosecution, but can sufficiently recognize the facts opposed to the said fact with the free evaluation by evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu493, Oct. 26, 1987). The reason for the disposition of non-prosecution is insufficient evidence to deem the entire supply value of the instant tax invoice as false. Thus, it cannot be deemed that such circumstance alone proves that the content of the instant tax invoice conform

6) The Plaintiff asserts that the payment of subcontract costs in cash without financial evidence is a general business practice in the construction business, and that the cost ratio is merely 54.73% if all of the instant tax invoices are denied, and thus, the amount corresponding to the instant tax invoice should be considered to have been actually paid. However, the Plaintiff asserts that all of the amounts corresponding to the instant tax invoice should be deemed to have been paid in cash to the business other than the instant four business entities. However, the Plaintiff also asserts that there is no amount of cash payment without financial evidence, and the current status of receipt of the construction cost can be confirmed as financial data, and it is difficult to recognize that there is a practice that pays subcontract costs in cash and does not keep financial evidence, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed to have been proven that the cost ratio is lower than the average.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, 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 in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.