Suwon District Court 2013Guhap5020

The tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, and the plaintiff was negligent.

Upon examining the type of transaction, etc., the tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, and cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the plaintiff.

2014Nu45200 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○ Kim

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

February 19, 2014

October 8, 2014

November 5, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The imposition of value-added tax for the first term of July 10, 2007 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

This court's reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the court of first instance as follows and the additional decision is made in the next paragraph. Thus, the corresponding part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○○ C&C’s 7th following the 5th page is called “○○ C&C”.

○ Attached Acts and subordinate statutes shall be replaced by the attached Acts and subordinate statutes of the end of this judgment.

2. Additional determination

A. Whether the tax invoice of this case is false

In light of the aforementioned evidence and evidence and evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, ① ○○CC filed a report on sales transactions for a short period of time; ② ○○CC appears to have no particular income except for fees earned from the transaction that was issued or received a false tax invoice during the pertinent period; ② Even if the tax authority followed the construction work experience of the construction engineers employed by the Korea Construction Technology Association, it does not confirm that the above construction engineers were placed in the actual construction site during the service period and participated in the construction; ③ ○CCC’s representative director Kim○○ was found guilty of having violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) in relation to the issuance of false sales tax invoices by multiple related companies; ④ Even according to the evidence Nos. 14 and 16, it is difficult to view that the documents related to the instant construction project were lost due to subsequent delay, etc. as alleged by the Plaintiff; and the various circumstances in the first instance trial are different from the facts stated therein.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is not acceptable.

B. Whether the Plaintiff is a bona fide and without fault

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to deem ○CC as directly performing the instant construction work, the type of transaction revealed in the tax investigation of ○CCC, the details and contents of the instant construction contract, and the circumstances in the first instance trial, etc., even if the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the fact that ○CCC was not a business entity providing construction services, it is reasonable to deem that there was negligence. Considering that the Defendant’s tax investigation, etc. conducted with respect to the Plaintiff immediately after being notified of taxation data, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence.

This part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.