Cho High Court Decision 201Do2802 ( November 09, 2011)

The argument that money laundering is not a cost for tax consulting services is difficult to accept because there is no reliable data presentation.

The plaintiff argued that the money that the plaintiff received from the non-party company was entrusted with money laundering to the plaintiff in order to raise funds for the person who was the representative director of the non-party company, not for tax services, and that the plaintiff returned the money in full, but the evidence or assertion consistent with the claim cannot be accepted as it is insufficient to accept

Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

KimA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

May 10, 2013

June 28, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period portion of 2008 against the Plaintiff on October 26, 2010 (which appears to be erroneous in December 6, 2010) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 20, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a business contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with BBS Quaker Co., Ltd. (CC, Inc., Ltd., on December 28, 2006; hereinafter referred to as “BS Qua”), which delegates the tax affairs on the high city project promoted by the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). According to the instant contract, the scope of the delegated work is the non-party company’s request for correction, review of comprehensive real estate holding tax, development charges, and other public charges (hereinafter referred to as “instant service”). The scope of the delegated work is the non-party company’s request for correction, and other public charges arising from public law relations, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant service”), and the period of validity of the said contract shall be paid to the Plaintiff by November 30, 2006.

B. On November 27, 2006, the Plaintiff received the instant fee of KRW 000 from the Nonparty Company by account transfer.

C. On October 12, 2009, the head of the regional tax office, who conducted a tax investigation with respect to the non-party company, notified the Defendant of the under-reported materials on suspicion of underreporting the Plaintiff’s sales report regarding the instant fee of KRW 000,000, which was appropriated as advance payment on the balance sheet of the company’

D. Accordingly, on April 2010, the Defendant sent a written explanation of taxation data to the Plaintiff, and on June 3, 2010, sent a written explanation demanding the Nonparty Company to submit relevant data, such as books and documents related to the provision of the instant service.

E. On June 23, 2010, the non-party company submitted explanatory documents to the effect that "the non-party company entered into the contract of this case with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not provide the service of this case, and the plaintiff did not recover KRW 000 of the fee of this case paid on November 27, 2006 and KRW 000,000 paid on November 2, 2006, which was scheduled to be recovered," and issued a certificate to the effect that on July 21, 2010, the non-party company requested the plaintiff to return KRW 000,000, such as the fee of this case.

F. Meanwhile, from the commencement date of the non-party company's business to July 25, 2008, the Plaintiff represented the non-party company's reporting business of value-added tax.

G. On July 25, 2008, the Defendant deemed on July 25, 2008, which represented the reporting of value-added tax for the first term portion in 2008, as the time of completing the provision of the instant service, and imposed 000 won of value-added tax for the second term portion in 2008 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

H. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on August 9, 201 on March 7, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 9, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 27, 2006, the non-party company paid 000 won to the plaintiff, not to provide tax services, but to make funds embezzled by the non-party company's representative director. The plaintiff returned the above 000 won to Madddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) According to the above facts, the plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the non-party company on November 20, 2006, and on November 27, 2006, the non-party company received KRW 000 of the fee of this case from the non-party company, and on July 25, 2008, the non-party company was represented by the non-party company's report of value-added tax for the first period of 2008, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff provided services under the contract of this case to the non-party company.

2) The Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s 00 won received from the non-party company, claimed that Maddi, which was the representative director of the non-party company, entrusted money laundering to the Plaintiff in order to make the non-party company’s expense, and the Plaintiff returned Maddi to Maddi in full. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively considering the facts and the overall purport of the pleadings in the entries in 89 and 10 above, the Plaintiff’s testimony as consistent with the Plaintiff’s argument and the testimony in 5 and 6 and 7 evidence, and E’s testimony are insufficient to support the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

A) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff returned KRW 000 and KRW 000 to E, and KRW 000,000, to NAF in its financial accounts, but there is no objective evidence, such as financial evidence, as to the return of KRW 00,00, and there is no evidence as to whether the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had delivered the money, and whether the said person has been delegated the authority to receive the money from NA.

B) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 10, the MaximumG, the representative director of the non-party company, stated at the investigation agency that the non-party company committed the act of embezzlement of the revolving money at the time of the non-party company's representative director. At that time, Japan stated at the investigation agency that the non-party company did not have any employee "FF" at the time of the escape, and at that time there was no employee at all about KRW 00 of the fee at the time of the escape, but later, it was confirmed through the employee at the later time that the HaH led to the investigation agency, and these statements are inconsistent with the plaintiff's assertion that Ma was responsible for 00 won in order to make the funds by embezzlement the company's funds.

C) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 8, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on June 14, 201, and the non-party company entrusted the plaintiff with the tax affairs to the plaintiff on November 2, 2006, and paid the plaintiff a total of KRW 000 won on November 27, 2006, and KRW 000 on March 15, 2007, and the plaintiff did not provide the tax services. Thus, the plaintiff did not respond to the above lawsuit, and the plaintiff was judged in favor of the non-party company, and the judgment became final and conclusive, and if the plaintiff returned the plaintiff's tax affairs to Jeong, it cannot be easily agreed that the plaintiff did not respond to the above lawsuit.

D) On July 21, 2010, the non-party company sent a mail to the Plaintiff to return the amount paid in advance, and on June 14, 201, the non-party company filed the above lawsuit against the Plaintiff, but it was only conducted after the Defendant requested the Plaintiff and the non-party company to submit a supporting document, and the non-party company did not request the Plaintiff to return the amount paid in advance.

E) On October 5, 2006, immediately before the Plaintiff, and Party DD deposited money into the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff alleged that it was subject to criminal punishment on the grounds that it embezzleds KRW 5 billion of the funds of Nonparty Company by means similar to the instant case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge, and there is no evidence to acknowledge.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.