Cho High 208 Before 1922 (Law No. 26, 2008)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the input tax should be deducted because the person did not know the name of the tax invoice related to the contracting corporation.

It is reasonable to view that the other party to the transaction knew that the actual contractor is a nominal contractor in view of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the fact that he/she provided construction services after paying a comprehensive construction business license fee.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount of Value-Added Tax)

Article 18 (Preliminary Return and Payment of Value-Added Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 49,241,910, value-added tax for the second term of 2004 against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2008 (which appears to be a clerical error in March 10, 2008), KRW 16,640,810, value-added tax for the first term of 2005, global income tax for the year 2004, KRW 6,400,000, global income tax for the year 2005, and KRW 2,200,000,000, respectively.

3. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On July 6, 2004, in constructing a new factory on the ground of ○○○○○○-ri 78-1, the Plaintiff: (a) contracted the construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”); and (b) paid KRW 430,00,00 as the cost of the construction work to a forest development corporation; and (c) paid KRW 430,000 as the cost of the construction work; (b) 1 and 1 of the tax invoice (the supply price of KRW 150,00,000, the tax amount of KRW 15,000,000, the tax amount of KRW 15,000,000, the tax amount of KRW 15,000,000, the tax amount of KRW 170,000, the tax amount of KRW 17,000,0000, the tax amount of KRW 100,000, the output tax amount of KRW 100,205.

B. On March 10, 2008, the Defendant issued a disposition to additionally impose KRW 2,200,000,000 for the global income tax for the year 2004, for the reason that each of the above tax invoices constitutes cases where the entries are different from the facts, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and to additionally impose KRW 16,640,810 for the first term portion of the year 2004, for the reason that the lack of evidence is applied to the cases where the entries are different from the facts (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Private Opinion without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 15-1 and 2, each statement, pleading

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff from the field agent or ○○ Development Co., Ltd.

As a person who was delegated with comprehensive delegation, the construction of this case was known. The actual supplier of the construction of this case was not the ○○ Development Co., Ltd. but the ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., and there was no negligence as to this, and thus, the input tax amount under the construction contract should be deducted from the output tax amount, but the disposition of this case was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount of Value-Added Tax)

Article 18 (Preliminary Return and Payment of Value-Added Tax)

C. Determination

1) Where the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are different, the tax invoice received;

Unless there is any special circumstance that there is no negligence on the part of the person who was unaware of the name of a gold account statement, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the person who claimed the input tax amount deduction or refund should prove that there was no negligence on the part of the person who was supplied with the above fact that he was unaware of the name of a gold account statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu13206, Mar. 10, 1995; 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997).

2) Each statement of evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3-1 through 44, and evidence Nos. 4-1 through 14 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was unaware of the title of the tax invoice, and there is no other negligence. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was negligent, and the Plaintiff’s overall purport of pleading in the items of evidence Nos. 5 through 11, Nos. 12-1, 2, and 13 and 14 was acknowledged, namely, ① the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract in the name of ○○ Development Co.,, Ltd., and deducted input tax amount under the name of ○○ Development Co.,, Ltd., with the Plaintiff’s comprehensive tax invoice issued under the name of ○○○ Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that ○○○○ Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was a construction business owner using the title of Red Metal Development Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract for new Construction Works.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit on the premise of objection.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.