Seocho-2014- Busan District Court-5090 ( October 07, 2015)

It is reasonable to regard loans and interest as construction cost not paid.

It is reasonable to view that there is no objective data to acknowledge the loan, and it is paid as construction cost rather than the loan and interest repayment.

Articles 13 and 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2016Guhap5035 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○ Construction Corporation

○ Head of tax office

2016.07.19

2016.20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,00,000 for the first period of March 10, 2014, and KRW 200 x corporate tax of KRW 00,000 for the business year x 200,000 for the business year x 200 x 00,000 for the bonus income for the business year x 00,000 for the bonus income for the business year x 00,000 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation running real estate development business, etc., filed a value-added tax return by issuing a tax invoice of KRW 00,000,000 for the second period supply price in 2008.

B. The Defendant reported value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000 on March 10, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff received payment of KRW 00,000 as the construction cost from the AAB from the second to the first half of 2008, but omitted sales of KRW 00,000,000 and omitted sales from the AAB, and notified the correction and notification of KRW 00,000,000 as the corporate tax for the business year 209 and KRW 00,000,000 as the bonus for the Plaintiff’s representative director KimB for the business year 2009 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on October 13, 2014 on June 9, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on October 7, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 14, 2008, the Plaintiff started the construction work of this case after receiving a contract for the construction cost of KRW 500,000 (excluding value-added tax), but on the spot around October 2008, on the ground of delay in the payment of the construction cost of the AAP, and the AACC continued the remainder of the construction work under its direct management. On November 26, 2008, KimCC requested the Plaintiff’s representative director to lend the construction cost directly to KimB, and on November 26, 2008, KimB lent KRW 00,000,000 to the DD case (hereinafter referred to as “DD case”) in which KimCC was the actual owner (hereinafter referred to as “EE”), the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 10,000,000,000 on May 8, 200 and August 209).

The plaintiff was paid KRW 00 million as the construction price as listed in the table below by the AAB from the AAB conference, and on August 26, 2009, by KimB received KRW 00 million as of August 26, 2009, the total amount of KRW 000,000,000 out of KRW 00,000 out of the checks issued on the same day shall not be paid as the construction price.

No.

Date

addressee

Construction cost (cost)

Loans and interest (cost)

Non-higher (won)

1

June 23, 2008

00,000,000

Contract deposit

2

November 24, 2008

00,000,000

3

August 26, 2009

00,000,000

4

August 26, 2009

KimB

00,000,000

5

August 26, 2009

Plaintiff, KimB

00,000,000

00,000,000

One check

(00,000,000)

Total

00,000,000

00,000,000

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case taken by the Plaintiff on the premise that the said KRW 00 million was paid as the construction cost is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 26, 2008, the DNA case (Representative F) in which KimB was the actual inspection owner deposited KRW 000,000,000 into the EE account in the actual inspection site. On November 26, 2008, the book-keeping of the accounts for each 2008 business year, stating that the above amount as of November 26, 2008, as of November 26, 2008, is the representative's temporary acceptance and statement of the provisional payment amount reported in the business year of 2008, stating that the DD case is "one billion won as of November 26, 2008".

2) The plaintiff deposited into the DDR account on May 8, 2009, and August 20, 2009, and the amount of KRW 00 million on August 20, 2009, and the amount of KRW 00 million as of May 8, 2009, and KRW 00 million as of August 20, 2009, respectively, respectively. The DDR as of August 20, 2009, stated that the amount of KRW 200,000 as of May 8, 2009, as of KRW 200,000 as of August 20, 209, as of KRW 9,000 as of May 8, 200, as of KRW 2009,000 as of August 20, 209, as of KRW 2009,000 as of May 29, 209, respectively.

3) On June 23, 2008, AAE deposited the Plaintiff’s account with KRW 00 billion on November 24, 2008, KRW 00 million on August 26, 2009, KRW 00 billion on August 26, 2009, and deposited KRW 000,000 in the Plaintiff’s representative director KimB’s account on August 26, 2009, and KRW 00,000,000 won on KRW 00,000,000 won deposited from the AAE account, by the Plaintiff’s accounting officer, the Plaintiff’s account was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account.

4) The accounting books of the AA church are as follows:

No.

Date

도요

Amount of revenue (won)

Amount of expenditure (amount of expenditure)

Jinay

1

June 29, 2008

Construction down payment

00,000,000

June 23, 2009

2

November 20, 2008

Construction Part

00,000,000

November 24, 2009

3

August 30, 2009

Agricultural Cooperative Loaning

00,000,000

4

August 30, 2009

Construction Part

00,000,000

August 26, 2009

5

August 30, 2009

Redemption of Loans

00,000,000

6

November 29, 2009

Balance of Construction

00,000,000

5) On March 20, 2009, the Plaintiff submitted a statement of accounts to the AAB conference. On the above statement of accounts, the amount of construction work is KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, 7, 12, Eul evidence 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence mentioned above and evidence No. 13 as well as the facts and facts acknowledged as evidence No. 13, which can be comprehensively seen, the AAB paid KRW 00 million to KimB, etc. on August 26, 2009, to the Plaintiff, not the loan and interest payment, and the construction payment for the Plaintiff. The testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 10, and 12 as well as the witness KimCC is insufficient to reverse the fact of recognition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

1) The fact that DDR deposited KRW 00 million into the EE account on November 26, 2008, and that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 000,000,000 into the DDR account on May 8, 2009 and August 20, 2009 is as seen earlier, but the above amount does not appear in the statement of recognition of DDR and the Plaintiff’s provisional payment, etc., but there is no objective data to recognize the lending of KRW 00,000,000 in the above financial data or the loan certificate, etc. prepared between KimB and AAAB association.

2) The accounting books of the AA church do not state the fact that the KimB borrowed KRW 000 million from the KimB, and only stated that the KRW 00 billion out of the agricultural loan KRW 000 million on August 30, 2009 was paid as the "construction intermediate payment", which does not state that the KRW 000 million was paid as the loan and interest payment.

3) The statement submitted to the AA church on March 20, 2009 shows that the last changed work price is KRW 00 million (excluding value-added tax). According to the accounting books of the AA church, the account books of the AA church state that the total amount of KRW 000 million (the contract price + the intermediate payment of KRW 00 billion + the intermediate payment of KRW 00 billion + the intermediate payment of KRW 00 billion + the remainder payment of KRW 00 billion) has been paid.

4) The head of the AAAB conference, who is responsible for the overall responsibility of the instant construction, suspended the construction at the time of the investigation by the prosecution, and the KimCC stated that the Plaintiff paid the construction cost of KRW 00 million in total to the △△△△△△△△△ on June 29, 2008, KRW 00 million on November 20, 2008, KRW 2000,000 on August 26, 2009, KRW 000,000 to the Plaintiff on the same day, KRW 00,000,000 to the △△△△△△△△△△ on the same day, and KRW 00,000,000 in total by paying each of the final settlement on November 25, 2009.

5) If the AAB paid a loan and interest amounting to KRW 00 million, the AAB does not pay KRW 00 million to KimB in full, and by dividing it, paid KRW 000,000 to KimB, and the remainder of KRW 00,000 by including KRW 00,000,000 in the check together with the construction cost is very exceptional in light of the empirical rule, and it is unclear the basis for calculating interest.

3. Conclusion

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