Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap38896 (Law No. 97.03)

Review Division 2008-0105 (2008.06.30)

Construction service purchase tax invoice shall be delivered to an entrepreneur at the time of receipt of the service.

Where a building has been separated from each other after completion of construction and approval for use while a joint business operator had been provided with construction services after registration for the first nine joint business operators, and each registration for ownership has been made respectively, and a tax invoice for the relevant construction services has been delivered in the name of each business operator other than the name of joint business operators, which is different

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1.The appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of early refusal of refund of KRW 8,181,919 and additional tax of KRW 1,636,360 shall be revoked for the first instance court on March 3, 2008 against the original school (the appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") and the third party for the second instance.

1. Acceptance of a judgment of the court of first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s new argument in the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary Parts]

The plaintiff, even if the above tax invoice is deemed to be a tax invoice different from the facts, the plaintiff et al. completed the first VAT return in 2007, based on the plaintiff et al.'s business registration for nine joint business operators including the plaintiff et al., and accordingly, the plaintiff et al. tried to report early refund in the name of nine joint business operators including the plaintiff et al..., and the public official in charge of the defendant et al. issued a purchase tax invoice issued under the name of the plaintiff et al. with the belief that the value-added tax may be refunded in the name of nine joint business operators including the plaintiff et al., and filed the early refund return. The plaintiff et al. asserted that the refund refusal disposition and the additional tax imposition disposition contrary to the original tax guidance violate the new good faith principle under Article 15 of the Framework Act and

The plaintiff's assertion that the tax guidance was given to nine persons including the plaintiff et al. who intend to report early refund in the name of nine joint business operators, including the plaintiff et al., for the refund of value-added tax, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff et al. provided a tax guidance that the return should be filed in the name of nine persons including the plaintiff et al.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.