Seoul High Court Decision 201J2582

Since the processing purchase price is treated as a semi-loan, the bonus to the representative is reasonable;

The representative's liability to the company was extinguished as the accounting of the processing sale and the processing purchase is not responding to the accounting of the processing sale and the processing purchase, and the accounting of the processing sale and the collection of the settlement has been accounts as a counter-loan of the principal short-term loan.

Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act

2012Guhap28209 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

AA General Construction Corporation

1. Seoul Director of the Regional Tax Office;

July 19, 2013

September 27, 2013

1. On April 4, 201, the head of Jinju Tax Office revoked the imposition of the value-added tax (additional tax) No. 2007 against the Plaintiff on April 4, 201.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Jinju Director and the defendant's claims against the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Jinju Director shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder by the Defendant Jinju Director, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The head of Jinju Tax Office’s revocation of each imposition of OOOO and additional tax on April 4, 201 against the Plaintiff on 2007, the second year of value-added tax and the second year of value-added tax in 2008. The head of Jinju Tax Office’s revocation of the imposition of the first year additional tax for the Plaintiff on March 7, 2013, and the second year additional tax for the second year of 2008 by the head of Jinju Tax Office’s revocation of the imposition of the first year additional tax for the Plaintiff on 2008. The imposition of the second year additional tax for the first year of 2008 by the head of Jinju Tax Office’s Seoul Regional Tax Office against the Plaintiff on April 4, 2011. The revocation of each disposition of the changes in the income amount for OOOB, income type of income, income amount for 206, OOOOOO for 207, 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2006, the Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in a comprehensive construction business, performed (i) the construction work ofCC, (ii) the construction work of OOdong DD Village from 2007, (iii) the construction work of roads for OO 2-88, and (iv) the construction work of EE center’s facility FF hotel facilities.

B. After conducting the consolidated investigation against the Plaintiff from 2005 to 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the head of the Jinju Tax Office of taxation data containing the following:

" (1) 원고가 2006 사업연도에 한 CC메디컬센터 신축공사와 관련하여 당초 공사대금 OOOO원을 OOOO원으로 변경하면서 공급가액 OOOO원 및 이에 대한 부가가치세 OOOO원이 포함된 허위의 세금계산서를 CC메디컬센터에 교부하고, 이에 대응하여 주식회사 GGG 외 10개 업체(이하GGG 등'이라 한다)로부터 실물거래가 없는 공급가액 OOOO원 및 부가가치세 OOOO원이 기재된 허위의 세금계산서를 교부받은 다음 위 금원을 GGG 등에게 지급하고, GGG 등으로부터 위 금원 중 OOOO원(= 공급가액 OOOO원 + 부가가치세 OOOO원)을 다시 회수하면서 회수시점에 이를 장부상 주주 ・ 임원 ・ 종업원 단기대여금(이하주임종 단기대여금'이라 한다)이 현금으로 회수된 것으로 회계처리하였다.", " (2) 원고가 2007 사업연도에 한 OO동 DDD마을 신축공사(이하DDD마을 신축공사'라고 한다)와 관련하여 HHH 주식회사 등 3개 업체(이하HHH 등'이라 한다)로부터 실물거래가 없는 공급가액 OOOO원 및 부가가치세 OOOO원이 기재된 허위의 세금계산서를 교부받은 다음 위 금원을 HHH 등에게 지급하고, HHH 등으로부터 OOOO원(= 공급가액 OOOO원 + 부가가치세 OOOO원)을 다시 회수하면서 회수시점에 이를 장부상 주임종 단기대여금이 회수된 것으로 회계처리하였다.", " (3) 원고가 2007 ~ 2008 사업연도에 한 OO시 OO 2-OO호선 도로개설공사(이하OO시 OO 도로개설공사'라고 한다)와 관련하여 주식회사 II종합조경 외 5개 업체 (이하II종합조경 등'이라 한다)로부터 실물거래가 없는 공급가액 OOOO원 및 부가가치세 OOOO원이 기재된 허위의 세금계산서를 교부받은 다음 위 금원을 II종합조경 등에게 지급하고, II종합조경 등으로부터 위 금원 중 OOOO원(= 공급가액 OOOO원 + 부가가치세 OOOO원)을 다시 회수하면서 회수시점에 이를 장부상 주임종 단기대여금이 회수된 것으로 회계처리하였다.", " (4) 주식회사 JJJ(이하JJJ'이라고 한다)은 2007 ~ 2008 사업연도에 EEE센터 시설공사를 시행함에 있어서 거래처 주식회사 KKK 외 42 개 업체(이하KKK 등'이라 한다)와 직접 거래하였음에도 원고가 위 KKK 등으로부터 재화 또는 용역을 제공받아 이를 다시 JJJ에게 제공하는 것처럼 세금계산서를 수수하여 거래관계를 위장하였다.", " 다. 피고 진주세무서장은 피고 서울지방국세청장으로부터 위와 같이 통보받은 과세 자료에 따라 2011. 4. 4. 원고에 대하여 2006 사업연도 법인세 OOOO원, 2007 사업연도 법인세 OOOO원, 2006년 제2기 부가가치세 OOOO원, 2007년 제1기 부가가치세 OOOO원, 2007년 제2기 부가가치세 OOOO원(가산세 OOOO원 포함), 2008년 제1기 부가가치세 OOOO원(가산세 OOOO원 포함), 2008년 제2기 부가가치세 OOOO원(가산세 OOOO원 포함), 2009년 제2기 부가가치세 OOOO원을 각 부과하였고(위 부과처분 중 2007년 제2기 부가가치세 OOOO원, 2008년 제1기 부가가치세 OOOO원, 2008년 제2기 부가가치세 OOOO원의 부과처분을이 사건 부가가치세 부과처분'이라 한다), 피고 서울지방국세청장은 2011. 4. 4. 법인소득금액 계산상 익금산입한 2006 사업연도분 OOOO원, 2007 사업연도분 OOOO원, 2008 사업연도분 OOOO원 등 합계 OOOO원을 대표자 상여로 소득처분하여 원고에게 소득금액변동통지를 하였다(이하이 사건 소득금액변동통지 처분'이라고 한다. 이 사건 부가가치세 부과처분과 이 사건 소득금액변동통지 처분을 합하여이 사건 처분'이라 한다).", 라. 원고는 이에 불복하여 2011. 7. 1. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였으나, 조세심판원은 2012. 5. 25. 원고의 심판청구를 기각하였다.

E. Meanwhile, on March 7, 2013, the instant lawsuit pending, the Defendant revoked ex officio the imposition of the first term portion of the penalty tax in 2008 and the second term portion of the penalty tax in 2008 on the grounds of the defect in the notification procedure, and further imposed the same tax amount by specifying the type of penalty tax and the calculation basis thereof on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 3, Gap's 24, Eul's 27 evidence (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The illegality of the notice of change in the income amount of this case

(A) The amount that the Plaintiff paid to GGG, etc. in relation to the new construction of theCC Center, the amount that the Plaintiff paid to HH, etc. in relation to the DD Village Construction, and the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the two comprehensive landscaping, etc. in relation to the OOM Construction, although it was paid without any transaction of goods or services, it was premised on the collection from the beginning, and the amount actually paid was immediately recovered to the Plaintiff, and as such, the transfer of the amount equivalent to the price was not enough to deem that the Plaintiff bears a separate liability. Thus, the said amount cannot be deemed to have been leaked to any person other than a legal entity.

(B) Since the account under the name of the representative director of the Plaintiff was used in relation to the Plaintiff’s business, such as deposit and withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s construction payment, the said account cannot be deemed as the account of the lower-B individual, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the amount deposited in the said account was reverted to the lower-B.

(C) The Plaintiff accounted for the amount deposited to the Plaintiff in the course of transferring the said amount due to the collection of the provisional payment or the increase in the provisional payment from the sub-B, but this is merely a nominal accounting that the Plaintiff used the corporate account and the accounts in the name of the sub-B.

(D) Therefore, even though each of the above amounts cannot be deemed to have been leaked out of the company, the disposition of notifying the change in the amount of income of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

(2) The illegality of the principal tax of the instant disposition imposing value added tax

(A) On December 10, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the JJ for construction of the EE Center F hotel facilities construction (hereinafter “instant hotel facilities construction”) with the contractor J, the Plaintiff, the contractor, and the construction period of the construction, and entered into a contract for construction works with the OOO of the construction cost, and the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on April 30, 200 and August 31, 208 on the change of the construction cost of the instant construction works with the KJ as a result of the supply of a fixed amount of housing construction cost for the construction project and the supply of the housing construction cost to the KK. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not obliged to supply the housing construction cost for the construction project to the KJ as a subcontractor for the construction of the instant construction project, and the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have entered into a subcontract with the KJ as a subcontractor for the construction project and the construction cost of the instant construction project. Accordingly, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have entered into a subcontract for the construction project and the construction cost of the instant construction project.

(D) Therefore, the disposition imposing the value-added tax of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued by KK, etc. in relation to the hotel facility construction of this case and the tax invoice issued by JJ is a false tax invoice is unlawful.

(3) Illegality of the disposition imposing the value-added tax in this case

(A) Of the instant imposition disposition of value-added tax, the imposition disposition of the principal tax is unlawful, and thus, the imposition disposition of value-added tax should be revoked together with the principal tax.

(B) Even if the imposition of penalty tax is a disposition imposing penalty tax, if only the sum of the penalty tax is written without disclosing the type and the basis for calculation of the amount of penalty tax, the imposition of penalty tax cannot be avoided. The imposition of penalty tax for the second period of 2007 among the disposition imposing penalty tax in this case was unlawful since the imposition of penalty tax does not specify the type of penalty tax and the basis for

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the disposition of notifying the change in the income amount of this case is legitimate

(A) Facts of recognition

1) A) The Plaintiff received a false tax invoice between August 25, 2006 and August 30, 2006, stating the supply value of goods not traded in real from GGG, etc., and then paid OOOO (=OOO + OOOO +) to FF, etc.

B) From December 22, 2006 to January 9, 2007, FF, etc. remitted OOOE out of the false purchase price received from the Plaintiff to the account under the name of HBB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and HB again remitted the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account as above. Meanwhile, some companies (GGG, MM electricity fire fighting, and NNNNN) out of the false purchase price transferred OOE to the Plaintiff’s account directly in the name of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff deposited OOOOE out of the false purchase price paid to GGG, etc. (i.e., OOOE + OOOOE) in the account under the Plaintiff’s name.

C) When a false purchase price has been returned to the Plaintiff’s account again, the Plaintiff deemed that a loan claim against the representative director was collected, and accounted as the account for a short-term loan for the principal and short-term loan on the account book.

2) A) During the process of the Plaintiff’s new construction of DD village, between October 2, 2007 and December 20, 2007, the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice stating the value of supply, the value of which is not a real transaction from HH, etc., and the value of the OO and the value-added tax, and paid H, etc. (=OOO KRW + OOOO KRW).

B) From December 26, 2007 to December 31, 2007, HH, etc. remitted the false purchase price received from the Plaintiff to the account under the name of HB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and HB again remitted the money that was transferred to one’s own account as above to the Plaintiff’s account. Meanwhile, the PP industry, among the false purchase places, directly remitted the false purchase price to HH, etc., to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, all the OOO directors paid by the Plaintiff with false purchase price to HH, etc. were deposited again into the account in the Plaintiff’s name.

C) The Plaintiff deemed that a loan to the representative director was incurred when the false purchase price was re-deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, and accounted as the account for a short-term loan account on the account book.

3) A) During the process of performing the construction of OO roads, the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice stating the supply value OOOO and value-added OOOOOOO directors who do not have any real transaction from June 30, 2007 to August 31, 2008, etc., and paid OOO directors (=OOOO directors + OOOO directors) to II comprehensive landscaping.

B) From August 23, 2007 to September 30, 2008, 2008, the second comprehensive landscaping et al. remitted OOOE out of the false purchase price received from the Plaintiff to the account under the name of HBB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and HB again remitted the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account as above. Accordingly, OOOE out of the OOE paid by the Plaintiff to II comprehensive landscaping et al., deposited the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.

C) The Plaintiff deemed that a loan to the representative director was incurred when the false purchase price was re-deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, and accounted as the account for a short-term loan account on the account book.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's entry in evidence Nos. 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

(B) Determination

1) Where a corporation did not enter its sales in an account book despite the fact of sales, the total amount omitted from sales should be deemed to have been leaked to a private company, barring special circumstances. In this case, the special circumstance that the amount omitted from sales should be proved by the corporation, and even if the corporation failed to enter the amount received from sales in the account book, and the cash, which is the counterpart account, has been entered in the account book, once it was entered in a temporary account, which is a temporary account, in which the amount of the sales has not been confirmed, the other party account. However, if the contents of the provisional account were to enter the short-term loan transactions from the representative director, and it is verified that it was an obligation against the representative director, such transactions do not entail the change or increase of corporate net assets, and thus, such transactions shall be deemed to have been related to corporate profits or expenses. Thus, barring special circumstances such as where the amount of the provisional account should have been entered in the account book as profits of the corporation, and thus, it shall be deemed to have been accrued to the representative director and the other party (see, 2001).

2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice from many customers during the process of constructingCCmera Center, DD Village New Construction Corporation, and OOcity Construction Corporation, and paid the false purchase amount on the tax invoice to the above transaction partner. Since the Plaintiff received the false purchase amount from the above transaction partner through the accounts in the name of HB, the representative director of the Plaintiff company, or directly transferred from the Plaintiff to the accounts in the name of the Plaintiff, the collected money was collected in the account book, or the virtual short-term loan was increased, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received OOO (the main short-term loan) related to the above construction and the related OOOO (the related OOOO) ＋ Construction and related DoD Village Construction ＋ Construction and the related OOO Construction and OOO Construction and OO Construction and OO Construction are excluded from the above transaction partner.

Furthermore, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the account under the name of HB cannot be deemed as the account of HB individual. As to whether the provisional payment for the processed amount deposited to the Plaintiff or provisional payment for the processed amount is merely a nominal processed bond or processing obligation and thus, the above amount is not leaked. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above acknowledged facts and evidence, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff was not directly transferred to the Plaintiff’s account in return of the false amount paid to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s representative director, but the transfer was made to the account of HB’s account. (ii) The Plaintiff’s account in the name of HB contains a large number of personal transactions, such as loans, electricity charges, communications charges, and overseas transfers, and thus, the Plaintiff’s account cannot be deemed as identical to the Plaintiff’s representative director’s account, and (iii) the Plaintiff’s new payment for the entrusted amount cannot be deemed as having been made from the Plaintiff’s account to the same account as the Plaintiff’s representative director’s new payment for the entrusted amount under the name of HB bank.

3) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s measures to notify the change in the income amount of this case taken on the same premise were lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the disposition of value-added tax of this case is legitimate

(A) Scope of hearing and determination

The Plaintiff does not dispute that the false tax invoices received from customers in relation to the construction of theCCmerdi Center, the DD Village Construction Corporation, and the OOO Road Construction Corporation are subject to non-deduction of the input tax amount. Therefore, the subject of the deliberation and determination as to the legality of the disposition imposing the value-added tax in this case is limited to the tax invoices received by the Plaintiff from KK, etc. in relation to the hotel facility construction of this case and the tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff to JJ as claimed by the Plaintiff.

(B) Facts of recognition

1) On March 31, 2007, J entered into a service contract with LL with the content of OOO in relation to the instant hotel facility construction management service (CM and freight management service) during the service period from April 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008, and entered into a contract to modify the service period and the service amount on September 1, 2007 and March 2009.

"2) On December 10, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the instant construction work (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with the JJ, the contractor, the Plaintiff, and the construction period from December 15, 2007 to April 30, 2008, with respect to the instant hotel facility construction work. The instant contract was changed to extend the construction period on April 30, 2008, May 29, 2008, and June 29, 2008. Meanwhile, on August 31, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the instant construction work with the contractor, the contractor, and the construction period from April 15, 2007 to April 30, 2008 (including value-added tax) with the contractor, and the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Korea Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Corporation from around 30, 2007 to around 30, 2008.

4) 원고는 2008. 1. 10.과 2008. 3. 12. JJJ에게 공사기성금을 청구하였고, JJJ은 QQ은행으로부터 시설자금대출을 받아 원고 명의의 계좌에 공사 대금을 송금하였다.

5) With respect to the instant hotel facility construction, the Plaintiff issued to JJ a tax invoice for the supply price of OOOOO(the supply price of the first period of 2007 to the second period of 2008 + the second period of 2008) and value-added tax OOOOO. From KK, etc., the Plaintiff was issued a tax invoice for OOOO(the value of the second period of 2007 + the 1st period of 2008 + the 2008 OOOO) and value-added tax invoice for the second period of 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entire arguments, as stated in Gap's Evidence Nos. 10, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 8 (including branch numbers, if any)

(C) Determination

Article 17(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from output tax if the details of the tax invoice are different from the facts. In such a case, the meaning that it is different from the fact is merely the nominal ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction, and if there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the said goods or service and the actual supplier and the supplier of the said goods or service, regardless of the formal descriptions of the contract price entered into between the supplier and the supplier and the actual supplier and the supplier of the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9, the evidence Nos. 12 through 17, the evidence Nos. 12 through 20, and the overall purport of the pleadings No. 12 and the evidence No. 20 (including the number of numbers) as a whole, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an actual transaction between the Plaintiff and JJ and KK, and the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① Hah R, the representative director of the JJ, is actually operating the LL, and the HaB of the Plaintiff’s representative director is the Hah R’s co-ar.

② The JJ initially contracted to SS Construction in charge of the construction of the hotel facilities of this case, but concluded the instant contract with the Plaintiff by removing only only the hotel facilities of this case as a result of the dispute over the SS Construction and the construction cost.

③ HB, the representative director of the Plaintiff, stated in the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation as follows.

○ The answer letter dated 24 November 2010 (No. 13)

- The amount of the interior work directly operated by the Plaintiff is limited to approximately KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 won. It is known that the Plaintiff has not received the payment under the supply contract only once, and that the payment has been paid directly to the Customer in the JJ.

○ The answer letter dated November 30, 2010 (No. 14)

- Only OOOO members directly invested by the Plaintiff, including TT Co., Ltd., UUU Co., Ltd., VV technology development Co., Ltd., WW Co., Ltd., Ltd., commercialization day, SY Co., Ltd., YYY Co., Ltd., ZZZ, Aa Industry Development Co., Ltd., bbB system).

- The Plaintiff did not know the details of the construction, details of the supply, the selection of the contractor, and the calculation of the cost of construction of the 33 companies, including TT Co., Ltd. other than 10 other companies. After the JJ directly selects the facility construction and the supplier, the J’s office located in the OO, designated the contractor as the Plaintiff, the contractor as the contractor, and then the selected president or employee of the JJ as the Plaintiff’s hhh hotel site office and the original CM team office of the JJJ, the son signed the contract as the Plaintiff’s employee.

- The tax invoices related to 33 companies, such as cc, have been received directly from the companies directly selected by the JJ at the Changwon CM Team of the JJ as the plaintiff and have been brought to the plaintiff's office.

- ccc 등 33개의 업체에 대한 공사대금과 관련하여, JJJ 본사에서 원고 명의의 QQ은행 통장을 직접 보관하면서 JJJ이 원고에게 통보한 후 원고의 공사대금을 입금시켰으며, 또한 위 33개의 업체에게 공사대금을 지급한다고 원고에게 통보한 후 JJJ에서 직접 출금 및 송금하였다.

○ The end of December 27, 2010 (No. 15)

- Ten companies, such as TT Co., Ltd., directly place orders by the Plaintiff to conduct landscaping works at specialized companies, and 33 companies, such as Ddiceices, are selected by JJ and LL CM Team and signed and sealed the contract directly on the part of the Plaintiff’s office and signed by the Plaintiff’s On-the-spot Director on the contract.

- The construction cost for 10 enterprises, such as TT Co., Ltd. was paid by means of a registered mail to send the money check in the custody of the company to the Plaintiff’s customer, upon a fff director's withdrawal from the JJ to the Plaintiff's customer, and the employee of the company was assigned to the company, and the payment was made by means of a registered mail to the JJff director in the O-dong ( August 31, 2008).

- Purchase tax invoice at the time of the declaration of value-added tax sent to the Plaintiff’s office located in the OO directly by mail from the customer.

- There is no fact that it entered into a contract-related service contract with LL.

- The plaintiff is aware of the reasons why the plaintiff has a pipe in the middle of 10 companies, such as JJ and TT Co., Ltd., and only JJ and LL are aware of the reasons.

- With respect to 33 companies, such as Dd Fluices, who did not directly order the Plaintiff, the contract was entered into between JJ and LL at the time of the initial contract. The contact between JJ and LL between 33 companies, such as Dd Fluices, and the JJ that the contract for the construction was entered into between the Plaintiff and 33 companies, including Ddfluices, and the Plaintiff without the JJ. After having been contacted with the Defendant, the customer was in progress in the construction and delivery at the place of the original hotel, and the 33 companies did not actually perform the subcontracted work of the Plaintiff and did not supply the Plaintiff.

" - With respect to changes, such as the unit price related to the reduction of the contract amount of hotel facility construction on August 31, 2008, by which the president of Chang LLL Kimg and the head of Seoe president, who is aware that the president of Chang LL Kimg and the head of Change president have prepared and submitted to the JJ, and the principal has fully included the reduced detailed details," and the former last day of January 7, 201 (No. 16 evidence) (No. 16).

- The amount of the contract for the hotel construction is KRW 11.83 million, and the cost of the construction was finally agreed with the JJ, and the construction cost was written by the JJ, so the principal is completely aware of the detailed details of the construction cost.

- With respect to the reduction of the contract amount of construction work on August 31, 2008, the reduction has been made due to the unconstruction and unpaid portion, and detailed details of the unconstruction or unpaid portion have been accurately discovered. The details of the change are first written by the JJ, and are voluntarily written by the JJ.

- The sales tax invoice from the OO on January 2, 2008, the OOO on February 29, 2008, the OOOO on June 30, 2008, the OOOOwon on August 31, 2008, the plaintiff's employee issued tax invoices at his/her own instruction and delivered them by mail to JJ.

- If the JJ notifies the customer of the amount of money to be deposited to the customer, it shall prepare a statement of money to be deposited in accordance with its amount and affix the bank employees seal to the JJ office in Seocho-dong.

- With respect to the selection of sub-subcontracts, the JJ directly established LL CM Team, a JJ subsidiary (at that time, worked in the site of OO), and notified the Plaintiff to the e-mail after determining the contract amount, the principal was aware of that there was little authority to select the company, and the entire contract with 43 business entities and suppliers of Hh HH hotel facilities and suppliers was signed in the name of the Plaintiff by the JJ.

- Since hh hotel facility construction works and all relevant tasks were conducted by JJ and its subsidiaries, she did not actually lead h hotel facility construction works by JJ.

" ④ 원고의 대표이사 하BB이 원고가 직접 발주하였다고 주장한 TTT 주식회사 등 10개 업체 중 9개 업체(TTT 주식회사, UUU 주식회사, VV기술개 발 주식회사, 주식회사 WWW, 주식회사 XXX, SS타일, YYY 주식회사, 주식회사 ZZZ, 주식회사 bbb시스템)는 서울지방국세청에LLL에 견적서를 제출한 후 LLL의 요구에 의하여 도급인을 원고로 하여 하도급계약서가 작성되었으며, 공사대금은 LLL에 청구하여 지급받았다. 원고의 사장 및 현장직원을 한 번도 만난 적이 없다.'는 취지의 확인서를 제출하였다.", " ⑤ LLL의 직원으로 하도급업체와의 계약체결 업무를 담당하였던 이ii은 2011. 1. 17. 서울지방국세청에서 조사를 받으면서LLL는 원고의 hh호텔 시설공사와 관련하여 원고의 계약서 작성 등 용역업무 계약을 체결한 사실이 없으며, 본인은 업체들로부터 견적을 받은 후 최종 공사금액 및 최종 업체를 선정하여 JJJ 하RR 회장의 결제를 받은 후 거래처와 계약서를 작성하였다'고 진술하였다.", " ⑥ 원고의 대표이사 하BB은 43개의 하도급업체 중 ccc 등 33개로부터 공사용역을 제공받지 않았다는 사실을 스스로 인정하고 있다. 또한 43개의 하도급업체 중 10개의 하도급업체로부터 공사용역을 제공받았다는 하BB의 진술은 위 업체들이 제출한 확인서의 내용에 비추어 볼 때 그대로 믿을 수 없다. 결국 원고의 대표이사 하BB의 진술, 하도급업체들이 제출한 확인서, LLL의 직원 이jj 등의 진술을 종합해 보면, 하도급업체의 선정은 LLL의 직원들이 주로 서울에 소재하는 업체들의 견적을 받은 다음 원고의 대표이사가 아닌 JJJ의 대표이사인 하RR의 결제를 받아 결정하였으며, LLL의 요구에 의하여 하도급계약서의 도급인만을 원고로 기재하여 작성하였을 뿐이다. 또한, LLL가 하도급업체를 선정하면서 작성 한 기안서 중 일부에원고를 통한 하도급계약 체결예정(관광 진흥 기금 신청)'이라고 기재되어 있는데, 원고가 직접 하도급업체를 결정하고 계약을 체결하였다면 위와 같은 문구가 기재되어 있을 이유가 없다.", ⑦ 원고의 대표이사 하BB은 2008. 1. 4. 및 2008. 2. 1. 원고 명의로 신규 개설한 QQ은행 통장(계좌번호 OOOO-OO-OOOOOOO 및 OOO-OO-OOOOOOO) 2개를 JJJ에게 건네주었고 JJJ의 직원이 원고 명의의 통장 2개를 OO시 OO동 사무실에서 직접 보관하면서 원고의 공사대금 상당액을 위 통장에 입금시킨 뒤 위 통장에 입금된 돈으로 하도급업체에게 송금하는 방법으로 하도급업체에 공사대금을 지급하였다.

8 The original contract related to the subcontractor was kept and managed directly by the management support team of the JJ, not the plaintiff, and the LLL actually managed the subcontractor by preparing "the direct order order sheet stating the name of the business entity, the settlement amount, the amount paid, the unpaid amount, etc. in connection with the subcontract for the construction of the hotel facilities of this case", and "the details of the execution of the funds". (9) The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff provided the hotel facilities construction of this case as the contractor. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was running the construction of the hotel facilities of this case at the time of the implementation of the hotel facilities of this case, it is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion only by the statement of Gap Nos. 14 through 18 (including the number of pages).

(10) Although the Plaintiff asserts that the hotel facility construction of this case was concluded by applying the facility fixed amount calculation system, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that LL was involved in the Plaintiff’s selection of subcontractors and the payment of the construction cost as part of the process and cost management as the construction project manager of the JJ. However, Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that construction project management refers to the management of construction projects, such as planning, feasibility studies, feasibility studies, design, procurement, contracts, construction management, supervision, evaluation, post management, etc., and in light of the fact that the Plaintiff, who is the contractor of the hotel facility construction of this case, was actually performing a substantial role in the selection of subcontractors and the payment of the subcontract price, it cannot be deemed that LL was done as a part of the construction project management by directly selecting a subcontractor and concluding a subcontract and paying the subcontract price under the direction of the JJ, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was any real transaction between the Plaintiff and JJ and the Plaintiff as the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff.

(3) Whether the disposition of additional tax in the instant disposition is legitimate

(A) As to the second penalty tax in 2007

1) When a single tax notice imposes both a principal tax and a penalty tax, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax notice separately. In addition, where multiple types of penalty taxes are imposed, it is reasonable for a taxpayer to have the details of each tax disposition known by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation thereof by different types of penalty taxes. As such, the imposition of penalty tax cannot be exempt in cases where only the total amount of penalty taxes are stated without disclosing the type thereof and the basis for calculation thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3, the Defendant’s tax payment notice imposing the second additional tax in 2007, which did not distinguish the additional tax such as the additional tax not submitted to the Plaintiff on the list of the total tax invoices, the under-reported additional tax, and the amount of the additional tax not classified by type, and it can be acknowledged that the basis for calculation of each of the above additional tax is not specified. Thus, the imposition of the second additional tax in 207 is unlawful.

(B) As to the first and second additional taxes in 2008

1) The imposition of the value-added tax by Defendant Jinju Tax Director against the Plaintiff is legitimate. As such, Defendant Jinju Tax Director’s imposition of the first and second additional tax against the Plaintiff in 2008 does not have any substantive unlawful grounds.

2) In addition, according to the above facts, the head of the Jinju Tax Office ex officio revoked the imposition of the first year penalty tax on March 7, 2013 and the second year penalty tax on March 2008, 2008, and further imposes the same amount of penalty tax by specifying the type of penalty tax and the grounds for the calculation thereof on the same day. As such, the imposition of penalty tax on the first and second years penalty tax on the first day of 2008 does not contain any illegality in the procedure.

3) Therefore, the imposition of the first and second penalty taxes in 2008 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Jinju Tax Office for the revocation of the imposition of the second-year value-added tax (additional tax) 2007 OOOOOO in 207 is justified, and the plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Jinju Tax Office and the claims against the defendant to the Seoul Director of the Seoul District Tax Office are dismissed. It is so decided as