Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-58236 ( September 21, 2018)

Whether the purchase tax amount of the purchase tax invoice pursuant to the plaintiff's direct performance of construction works is deducted

Whether direct payment of the input tax amount was made to the supplier does not fall under any necessary entry items under Article 16(1)1 through 4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act. Thus, whether such entry is false should be deemed as having no relation with the input tax deduction.

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Nu67406. Revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap58236 decided December 21, 2018

on 04 October 01, 201

on 05 October 01, 201

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 149,769,720 (including additional tax) in 2010 against the Plaintiff on July 15, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why this Court is used in relation to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the contents asserted by the defendant in the court of first instance to the corresponding part. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff should pay the amount equivalent to the input tax amount directly to CCC even if wages, etc. are directly paid according to the construction contract. However, since the Plaintiff did not directly pay the amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the relevant tax invoice to CCC, the relevant tax invoice should be deemed as a false tax invoice.

B. Determination

Article 16(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides, “Where an entrepreneur registered as a person liable for tax payment supplies goods or services, he/she shall issue an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as “tax invoice”) to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree at the time specified in Article 9.” The following provisions include the registration number and name or title of the entrepreneur who supplies the goods; 1. The registration number and name of the entrepreneur who supplies the goods; 3. Value-added Tax; 4. The date of preparation; 5.1 through 4. The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22578, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides, “in fact, the entrepreneur and the person who actually supplies the goods or services are different from the following items:

According to the provisions of such statutes, a tax invoice that differs from the fact that the input tax deduction is denied is merely a case where all or part of the requisite entry items under Article 16(1)1 through 4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act are omitted or different from the fact, and it does not mean a case where the voluntary entry items or other entry items are omitted or different from the fact under Article 16(1)5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

However, the issue of whether a direct payment of the input tax amount was made to a supplier does not fall under any of the necessary matters to be stated under Article 16(1)1 through 4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act. As such, whether a tax invoice contains any provision on the payment of the amount equivalent to the input tax amount, or whether such provision is different from the fact should be viewed as having no relation to the input tax amount. This part of the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion that “The Plaintiff should be deemed to have directly performed the pertinent construction, in light of that the Plaintiff’s direct payment of the amount equivalent to the input tax amount was not made to CCC but was made as wages, etc.” (the Defendant’s assertion that “The Plaintiff is deemed to have directly performed

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Judges Jeon Soo-tae

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judges Lee Jae-chul