Additional 2010-0081 (Law No. 28, 2010.06)

tax invoices issued in connection with extension and internal construction of a place of business shall constitute a tax invoice entered differently from the fact by the supplier.

Since a tax invoice issued in relation to extension and internal construction of a place of business constitutes a tax invoice that is written differently from the fact by a supplier, it is legitimate to impose tax without deducting the value-added tax amount.

2010Guhap3829 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

유〇〇

〇〇세무서장

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 26,558,460 on September 24, 2010 on which the Defendant sent the final demand note shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1996. 4. 19.경부터 〇〇시 〇〇구 〇〇동 660-3에서 원일자동차 매매상사를 운영하다가, 2009. 6. 22.경 위 장소에서 △△골프로 업종을 변경하기 위하여 그 사업장의 증축 및 내장공사(이하 '이 사건 공사'라 한다)를 하였다.

B. On July 25, 2009, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 179,845,000 in total from 10 companies, other than △ Electric, and filed a final tax return for the first taxable period in 2009, and filed a tax return after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. As a result of the Plaintiff’s on-site verification of the refund of value-added tax on the said workplace, the Defendant deducted the relevant input tax amount on the grounds that the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice by the supplier, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the value-added tax amount of KRW 24.048.586 in December 7, 2009.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on January 5, 2010, respectively, and on April 9, 2010, respectively, and on June 2010.

28. The instant lawsuit was filed upon the National Tax Service’s rejection of the request for review by the National Tax Service.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Eul 1, Eul 2, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was engaged in the instant construction with the assistance of the leastAA with the experience of the Plaintiff, and did not enter into a contract for construction works with the leastA, and received tax invoices from the parties involved in direct transactions. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the plaintiff entered into a contract for construction work with the least A on March 8, 2009 by setting the price of KRW 209,00,000. The plaintiff paid KRW 309,000,000 to the least A in connection with the construction work of this case, such as paying the down payment of KRW 20,000 to the least A on the day of the contract for the construction work of this case. The LA remitted KRW 141,375,986 to the Mail Electric Co., Ltd., the customer of this case related to the construction work of this case. The LA, from April 21, 2004, operated the construction business as the trade name of Doi, Doi, and closed the business on Oct. 19, 205. The plaintiff directly deposited the loan from the least 00,000,000 won to the National Financial Corporation of this case.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the largest AA entered into a contract for construction work with the Plaintiff on March 8, 2009, and actually carried out the construction work of this case, and received a tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff in relation to the construction work of this case from the relevant transaction parties. Therefore, the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff in relation to the construction work of this case constitutes a tax invoice which is written differently from the fact by the supplier, and thus the disposition of

3. Conclusion

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