logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.11.13 2014구합366
부가가치세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who engages in civil and construction works in the name of “C” in the former Sogyang-gun B from December 13, 1994.

B. On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiff et al., the Plaintiff et al., the Shinsung Construction Co., Ltd., MCo Co., Ltd., D (the name of the business entity: E), and Ilsan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant co-recipient”) jointly received the instant construction from the Seoul Regional Procurement Service, which completed the instant construction on October 2008.

C. The Plaintiff reported and paid value-added tax related to the instant project, deducting the input tax amount of KRW 14,380,000,000 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) received from the 15 sewage suppliers (hereinafter “the instant sewage suppliers”) in relation to the instant project from the output tax amount, and filed a return and payment of value-added tax for the first period of 1,2006 to 2008.

Around February 5, 2006, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff subcontracted to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) with respect to the instant construction project, and that F completed the instant construction by sub-subcontracting to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and that the instant tax invoice received from the instant subcontractor without receiving from F is a false tax invoice, and thus, on December 5, 2012, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice received from the instant subcontractor is a false tax invoice, and accordingly, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a revised notice of KRW 13,273,640, value-added tax of KRW 133,273,640, value-added tax of KRW 230,028,220 for value-added tax of KRW 230,028,220 for 208 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 26, 2013, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 to 3.

arrow