Whether the labor expenses not appropriated as a substitute for the portion received a processed tax invoice without a real transaction may be included in the deductible expenses.

Even if there is the fact that the processing tax invoice received without real transactions was paid as non-deductible expenses, the burden of proof that the portion was omitted in the calculation of losses is the taxpayer.

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

Article 19 (Scope of Losses)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 4,529,160 against the plaintiff on June 16, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence of No. 3, No. 4, No. 8, No. 1, and No. 2.

A. A. Around March 31, 2004, the Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., reported to the Defendant the corporate tax base for the business year 2003 to KRW 20,776,161, and paid the corporate tax accordingly.

B. On June 16, 2006, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff on the ground that the purchase tax invoice received from Nonparty ○○ Integrated Electric is a false tax invoice that is not a real transaction, and that the supply price of KRW 20,964,00 is included in deductible expenses, and that the tax base is KRW 41,740,161, the Plaintiff corrected the corporate tax for the business year 2003 to KRW 7,255,089, and then additionally paid KRW 4,429,160, which was deducted by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and against this, the plaintiff asserts that 42,00,000,000 won should be additionally added to deductible expenses, even though he subcontracted part of the batteries that he received from ○○○○○○ Corporation to 00,000 won and paid to 00,000 won to 0,000 won as labor expenses, the defendant omitted it at the corporate tax return.

B. Determination

The burden of proof of tax base, which is the basis of taxation in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of corporate tax, shall be imposed on the tax authority, and the tax base of revenue and necessary expenses shall be deducted from necessary expenses. However, considering that necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer and most of the facts generating necessary expenses are located in the territory under the control of the taxpayer, and it is easy to prove them, it would be consistent with the concept of fairness to recognize the necessity of proof to the taxpayer by permitting the presumption of non-existence of necessary expenses (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1588, Sept. 23, 2004). Thus, according to the plaintiff's assertion that there is omitted necessary expenses, the plaintiff is not only the omitted expenses but also the omission of such expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses at the time of filing a corporate tax return, the plaintiff's assertion that the above amount was not included in the calculation of deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in the calculation of deductible expenses in accordance with subparagraph 1, 200, 300, 3000, 300, 400, 200.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.