Cho High Court Decision 2012J2691 ( October 10, 2012)

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to admit that it is not a business operator, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the contract and receipt of this case are found to be false, it cannot be accepted since it goes against the principle of speech or good faith to claim that the above documents submitted by them are false at the expiration of the exclusion period of imposition of global income tax after the plaintiff was exempted from the comprehensive income tax by actively preparing a false document to the tax office.

Article 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

1.A 2.B

Head of Eastern Tax Office

July 4, 2013

August 22, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Value-added tax imposed by the Defendant on Plaintiff A on December 19, 201 on the second term portion of the Value-Added Tax No. 2004, and on Plaintiff BB on the first term portion of the Value-Added Tax No. 2005, and on the second term portion of the Value-Added Tax No. 2004, and on the first term portion of the Value-Added Tax No. 2005, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 17, 2005, CCC newly built the 446-7 o-gu OO-dong 446-7 o-dong 8 generation (hereinafter “each of the loans of this case”) and completed registration of initial ownership.

B. Thereafter, between February 25, 2005 and March 5, 2007, CCC completed the registration of ownership transfer as follows with respect to each of the loans of this case.

Borrowing L. L.C.

Date of transfer registration of ownership;

Grounds for Registration

Title Holder of ownership transfer registration

heading 201

may 2, 2005

Sale and purchase of February 28, 2005

JJ

No. 202

February 25, 2005

Donation made on February 24, 2005

DD (CCC’s wife)

No. 301

may 2, 2005

Sale and purchase of February 28, 2005

EE

No. 302

may 2, 2005

Sale and purchase of February 28, 2005

FF

No. 401

may 2, 2005

Sale and purchase of February 28, 2005

AA

No. 402

March 5, 2007

Sale and purchase on January 31, 2007

GG Co., Ltd. (A company in which the Plaintiff BB wife is the representative director)

heading 501

March 5, 2007

Sale and purchase on January 31, 2007

GGG Co.

No. 502

March 5, 2007

Sale and purchase on January 31, 2007

GGG Co.

C. On May 1, 2010, the head of Seosan Tax Office, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the CCC, issued a disposition to CCC on global income tax for 2005 in relation to the new construction and sale of each of the instant loans, andCC was exempted from the said comprehensive income tax by submitting the standard form of subcontract for construction works [A evidence No. 4-1 (No. 5, the same as the evidence No. 5, and hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) and the receipt for construction expenses (the evidence No. 5-1 through No. 12, and hereinafter referred to as the “the receipt of this case”) by asserting that the necessary expenses corresponding to the amount of income in calculating the business income.

D. The standard subcontract agreement of the above construction works contains the contents such as 'project owner', 'OOO', 'OCC', 'CCC', 'AAA, CC, E, F, and BB', 'CC', and 'CC, 'AAC, J, and BB', 'CC, AAJ, J, and BB' (However, JJ has affixed a corporate seal which is not personal seal).

E. The above construction cost receipt shall include the plaintiff BB on August 20, 2004, the OOO on October 10, 2004, and the OOOE on February 10, 2005, the aggregate of the OOOOE + OOOE + 20OO.O.O. 28, 2005, and O. 20O. 30O. 28, 2000, and 200 OJO. 28, O. 28, and 2000 O. 20 O. 28, O. 28, and 200 O. 20 O. 28, and 200 O. 20 O. 28, and 200 O. 20 O. 28, and 204 O. 20 O. 28, respectively.

F. On December 19, 201, on the basis of the content of the instant contract and receipt, the head of Seosan Tax Office notified the Defendant of the assessment data of value-added tax on the Plaintiffs on the basis of the construction cost payment details indicated in the instant contract and receipt, and the Defendant considered the Plaintiffs as a registered business operator who did not report the value-added tax even after executing the construction of the said loan construction, and imposed the imposition of value-added tax on Plaintiff A for the second period of 2004, and the first period of 2005, and the imposition of value-added tax on Plaintiff BB for each of the imposition of value-added tax on Plaintiff A for the second period of 204, and for the first period of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. On February 24, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed each appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on June 5, 2012, but all the claims were dismissed on October 10, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 3 through 7-2, evidence 15-1 to 8, Eul evidence 1-1 to 7, and the witness's testimony and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs, and they were actually not having newly built the instant loan, and upon the request of the plaintiffs BB-friendly KK's request, introduced the JJ, a construction business operator, and there was no fact of receiving the construction cost from the CCC, and submitted a false contract and receipt to the head of Seosan Tax Office in order to be exempted from the comprehensive income tax imposed on the CC. Accordingly, the instant disposition imposing value-added tax on the plaintiffs on the premise that the plaintiffs were performing the construction of the instant loan based on the aforementioned false contract and receipt is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

The court should recognize the existence and content of the Plaintiff’s expression of intent as stated in the Disposition Document unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents of the document’s establishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002). The contract and receipt of this case are documents directly prepared by the Plaintiffs, and the facts in which the Plaintiff’s new construction work of the Loan and the payment of the construction cost was stated in the contract and receipt of this case’s new construction work, are not disputed between the parties, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s submission of the receipts and receipt was difficult to recognize, as seen above, after considering the facts acknowledged and the overall purport of the arguments as above, and (i) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to use the receipts and receipt of this case’s new construction work as the subcontractor, and (ii) it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to use the receipts and receipts of this case’s new construction work, and (iii) it is difficult for them to recognize the Plaintiff’s new construction or new construction work under the Plaintiff’s own name.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.