The disposition of this case based on the confirmation document prepared by the representative director of the parent company has no illegality grounds.

It is difficult to readily conclude that a dispute is not a service price, but a loan to the Plaintiff Company, following the probative value of the written confirmation that the service price was paid.

2013Guhap9625 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

1. Stock Companies AA 2. GimB

o Head of the tax office

July 26, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

1. The Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax for the first term portion of July 1, 2012 against Plaintiff AA Co., Ltd. on the first term portion of 2008, the value-added tax for the second term of 2008, and the value-added tax for the first term portion of 2009, and the imposition of the corporate tax for the business year of 2008 as of July 2, 2012, shall be revoked.

2. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant’s notification of the change in the amount of income to Plaintiff KimB shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Plaintiff AAA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) was established on September 5, 2006 for the main purpose of real estate development advice, etc. on September 5, 2006, CCC (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) was established on October 30, 2002 for each main purpose. At the time of 2008, the shares of the Plaintiff Company were 40%, 40%, 30%, 30%, 30%, 20%, 30%, 20%, 100, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 200, 2000, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, 10, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff Company concluded a service agreement with the EE Commission (EECOTRATRION, hereinafter referred to as the “subsidiary”) but did not receive the service payment at time, and settled the service payment at the local subsidiary. The Plaintiff Company did not provide services to CCC, and the confirmation document prepared by CCC’s representative director KimD was the result of mistake due to the lack of accounting knowledge, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition at issue was unlawful.” (b) The relevant laws and regulations are unlawful since the Defendant’s confirmation document prepared by CCC’s representative director KimD was erroneous as to the premise of the disposition at issue.

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Details of establishment of the CCC and the process of tax investigations;

(1) The CCC established a local subsidiary to implement a construction project in two parts. On September 20, 2006, the Plaintiff Company and its subsidiaries entered into a business management service agreement with the Plaintiff Company to provide the Plaintiff Company with the organization and personnel dispatch for the implementation of the project, and the subsidiaries pay for services by the 20th day of each month.

(2) In the course of the tax investigation, the representative KimD, the CCC’s representative director, was provided with services (such as business review, establishment of plans, and written contract preparation) by the Plaintiff Company, paid the service fees as follows, and was in the accounts of related company loans, and confirmed that it was not reflected in the cost at the time of reporting corporate tax, and submitted a written confirmation to the investigating authority.

See Table 4 see Court Decision 4

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) If a tax authority received a written confirmation from a taxpayer that a certain portion of a transaction is a processing transaction in the course of a tax investigation, barring special circumstances, such as where the written confirmation was forced against the intent of the originator, or it is difficult to take the supporting materials of the specific fact due to insufficient details, etc., the evidence of the written confirmation cannot be readily denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

(2) The plaintiff company and CCC did not enter into a service contract between the plaintiff company and the CCC, and the amount of the dispute is not believed as follows. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 15, CCC prepared a substitute list by treating the dispute amount as the loan to the plaintiff. The plaintiff company is paid 20 times more than 30 times prior to the taxable period for the investigation, and it can be acknowledged that there was a frequent financial transaction between the plaintiff company and CCC on June 5, 2008. However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff company did not enter the dispute amount in the account book as the service price even with the loan, but it is difficult to establish the specific facts that the plaintiff company did not prepare the payment period for the loan agreement with the CCC, the interest agreement was not concluded, the agreement was not concluded on the loan, the plaintiff company did not accept the amount of the dispute amount as a specific document proving that it did not have any more favorable effect on the loan amount, and it can not be acknowledged that the contract amount was not executed.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are fully borne by the losing plaintiffs.