early 2008west093 ( October 10, 2008)

Whether a processing tax invoice related to the design construction has been received;

Since the title truster paid the construction cost and the Plaintiff appears to have not actually paid the construction cost, it constitutes a false tax invoice.

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

1. The defendant against the plaintiff:

(a)the part of KRW 295,74,856 in the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 329,261,681 on January 2, 2008;

B. Each disposition of imposition of KRW 1,362,021,370 of corporate tax for the business year 2002 dated January 3, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One fifth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 328,615,568 of value-added tax of KRW 329,261,681 on January 2, 2008 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 270,615,840 on January 3, 2008 by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. According to the record of the real estate register, on December 14, 2001, the Plaintiff purchased from ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, 1364, 2558 square meters, and 10 floors of reinforced concrete structure sloping roof (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”) on the land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as “the instant registration of ownership transfer”) in its name on February 5, 2002. On September 2, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by completing the registration of ownership transfer by making the donation agreement on August 31, 202 to the medical corporation, ○○○○ Medical Foundation (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”).

B. The Director of the △△△ Regional Tax Office conducted a corporate tax investigation on the Plaintiff and confirmed the following and notified the Defendant as taxation data.

(1) On September 2, 2002, the Plaintiff donated the instant real estate to △△△△, and acquired 4,300,000,000 won as collateral obligation of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the secured obligation”).

(2) On December 30, 2002, the Plaintiff was issued a purchase tax invoice stating the supply price of 272,727,272, value-added tax, 272,728 won in total, and 300,000,000 won (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) and received the input tax deduction, and the said sum was unjustly appropriated as the construction cost in December 2003.

(C) From 8,386,253,950 won including the appraised value of the instant real estate, the Defendant: (a) included 4,086,253,950 won, subtracting 4,300,000 won from the secured debt of this case which △△△ was acquired by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff; (b) did not include 3,918,613,043 won exceeding the limit of the designated donation in deductible expenses; (c) disposed of 300,000,000 won as bonus to the representative director; and (d) did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount of the instant tax invoice; and (e) did not regard the amount as 4,30,000,000 won as the secured debt of this case which the Plaintiff acquired to △△△△△; and accordingly, (e) notified the Plaintiff of the disposition of corporate tax of 202,200,707,307,3784,2008.

E. The plaintiff filed a request for re-determination and re-determination and re-determination of KRW 1,362,370 for the business year 202, and KRW 1,362,370 for the plaintiff on January 3, 2008, and KRW 270,615,840 for the following 2,000 for the reason that the notice of the first disposition was not received (hereinafter referred to as the "second disposition"). The defendant was finally subject to the second disposition of value-added tax on January 2, 2008, and the second disposition of KRW 5,360 for the business year 200,621,370 for the business year 203, 2003, 270, 360, 2616, 206, 205, 206, 206, 260, 260, 206, 207, 360, 206, 2616, 2636, 27, 27, 25, 206.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 17 evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's principal

(1) The title trust master of the instant real estate

The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of this case pursuant to the title trust agreement with HuB, but actually acquired the real estate of this case, and then donated it to △△△△, and did not have received the secured debt of this case. According to the substance over form principle under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, value-added tax and (4) corporate tax should be taxed on the title truster, not the title trustee, on the part of value-added tax (the title trustee), and the part of value-added tax and the part of corporate tax (4) are illegal since

(2) The allegation that the instant tax invoice was based on the actual transaction

The Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) with respect to the remodeling construction of the △ Special Hospital (hereinafter “the instant construction”) operated in the instant real estate. Although HuB, the actual owner of the instant real estate, paid the price of the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff was issued the instant tax invoice from this A because it was a party to the instant construction contract, who was responsible for paying the price to this A. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice that was actually supplied with the service. Nevertheless, the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice that was actually supplied with the service. Nevertheless, the instant tax invoice is illegal as the value-added tax (2) and the corporate tax (5).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) As to the assertion on title trust of the instant real estate

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Gap 10-8, 9, 10, 11, 13, Gap 11, 12, 13, 14, and 25, Gap 9's testimony, and Gap 9's testimony of the witness highestCC, Eul 2 purchased the real estate in the name of Gangwon-do hotel around December 14, 2001 in order to operate a senior citizen specialized hospital; HuB purchased the real estate in the name of Gangwon-do hotel around 14, 201; HuB made it difficult to complete the registration of ownership transfer with regard to the real estate in the name of Gangwon-do due to loan problems, etc. 200, HuB purchased the real estate in the name of the plaintiff 5B, which was the representative director, and the plaintiff 200-B, which was established in the name of HuB, and 200-2.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff was entrusted with the registration title of the real estate of this case from HuB, but actually acquired the real estate of this case, which was donated to △△△, and it does not constitute an acquisition of the secured debt of this case. Therefore, the part of the value-added tax and the part of the corporate tax are unlawful, under the premise that the plaintiff, like the registration title of the real estate register, donated the real estate of this case to △△△△△, which was premised on the fact that

(2) The statement that the tax invoice of this case was subject to the actual transaction

Article 17 (1) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that "the amount to be deducted from the input tax amount shall be "the tax amount for the supply of goods or services to be used or used for his own business." Of the price of the instant construction, the value-added tax is not the tax amount for the supply of goods or services to be used for his own business, and the Plaintiff cannot deduct the portion of the cost of the instant construction from the input tax amount. In addition, even according to the Plaintiff's assertion, since the Plaintiff only paid the cost of the instant construction, and the Plaintiff did not actually pay the cost of the instant construction, it cannot be included in the deductible expenses (However, even if the Plaintiff paid the construction cost to thisA, this shall not be included in the calculation of the input tax amount because the Plaintiff paid it to the Plaintiff, not the cost of the instant construction, but shall not be included in the calculation of deductible expenses).

There is no reason for the plaintiff's senior secretary.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition (the contents, 3, 4). The remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.