Seocho 2012west 1955 (Ob. 22, 2012)

It is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract under the name of the Plaintiff, and the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the party to the instant contract is legitimate.

The flow of the construction cost and the deposit details of accounts can be deemed as an act to create the fact that the person is the recipient of the construction cost in external form; the fact that only the amount deposited in the national bank account is deemed to have been acquired; the statement that the person was engaged in the business of lending a license to the director; and the fact that there was no return on and payment of the wage and salary tax during the period alleged to have been employed

2012Guhap32093 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

CivilAA

Head of the tax office;

March 27, 2013

April 12, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

On October 1, 201, the Defendant revoked each imposition of the first value-added tax (including additional tax) in 2006 and the second value-added tax (including additional tax) in 2006 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. BBAC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BBB”) concluded a contract for the construction work on April 25, 2006 (hereinafter “the contract in this case”) between SongD on behalf of the SongCC, the construction period for the construction of a new building on three lots except 000 OOdong, Jongno-gu Seoul, and the construction period from April 25, 2006 to September 25, 2006, and the contract amount of 50 million won.

B. The director of the regional tax office conducted a tax investigation on BB’s report and payment details of the corporate tax and value-added tax, and determined that “the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with BB by leasing the name of BB and entered into a new contract.” On October 1, 201, the Defendant notified the regional tax office of the above fact and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 of the value-added tax (including additional tax) for the first time in 2006 and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second time in 2006 (including additional tax) respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on December 30, 201, but was dismissed by the head of the Sejong-do Office on January 17, 2012. In addition, the Plaintiff requested a trial on April 20, 2012, but was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on June 22, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 6, evidence 9 (including household numbers), and evidence 12-3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From around 1990, the Plaintiff operated a construction company in Jongno-gu Seoul OOdong, but from around 2005, the Plaintiff had been employed as a member of BBB from around 2005. The instant contract was concluded between BB and SongCCC upon introduction by the real estate broker, which was known to the general public, and the Plaintiff was working as the site manager. The Plaintiff deposited the construction price into the corporate account of BB, and paid the construction cost, etc. under the direction of Park E-E, who is a director. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a party to the instant contract is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) BB issued a tax invoice of KRW 000 in the taxable period of the first value-added tax in 2006 and KRW 0000 in the taxable period of the second value-added tax in 2006. The SongCC reported the value-added tax in 2006 by deducting the input tax amount of KRW 000 from the output tax amount.

(2) On June 1, 2011, the head of the regional tax office reported BB as data, and determined BB as a false tax invoice. Accordingly, on June 1, 201, the head of the regional tax office issued the tax office revised and notified BB (including additional tax) KRW 000 (including additional tax) and KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 200) by deducting the input tax amount from the input tax amount.

(3) From March 15, 1990 to March 15, 1990, the Plaintiff engaged in a building business in the trade name of 'F comprehensive building' on the 0th floor of OO building located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, 000, and closed the business on November 19, 2007.

(4) SongD paid the construction cost on behalf of SongCC as follows, and deposited and withdrawn from the account in the name of Park G, the Plaintiff’s wife.

(5) In the case of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders against BB by the Director of BB, the right H, the title of which was registered as the director of BB, stated that “BB, actual representative of BBB,” “BB,” which is the head of BB, proposed to be registered as a director and entered into the name of BB, with the burden that BB, was borne by BB, and entered as a director by lending the name of BB. WorkE stated that BB was the lending of a construction license through Berer, and that the Corporation was not actually performing.

(6) The bank account in the name of BB was opened on March 15, 2006.

(7) The Plaintiff deposited KRW 1.2500 on May 3, 2006 with the national bank account (0000) of BB, and transferred KRW 000 on June 1, 2006 from the bank account under the name of BB to the above national bank account.

(8) The Plaintiff received benefits from BB, and did not report and pay the labor income tax.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap 2, 3, 4, 8, and 12, and 5, and 6, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

According to the above facts, it is recognized that BB is a contractor under the contract of this case, and that the contract price was deposited and withdrawn from this BB account. (1) However, since the contract price was deposited in the account under the name of BB, it was withdrawn after it was deposited in the account under the name of BB, and it was deposited into the account under the name of BB, and it was withdrawn after it was transferred to the account under the name of BB, and it was made through the account under the name of BB to create the fact that BB is the recipient of the contract price. (2) The bank deposit details: BB was kept in the bank account and the national bank account, and the contract was entered and withdrawn only before the date of entry into the contract of this case, and the contract was made under the name of BB, and the contract was made under the name of 00 won, and the contract was made under the name of 200,000 won, and the contract was made under the name of 200,000 won.

3. Conclusion

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