Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap6230 ( October 18, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do2755 ( November 24, 2011)

Any disposition that is imposed on the basis of a false tax invoice issued without the provision of construction services is legitimate.

When the Plaintiff was unable to obtain purchase tax invoices from the actual business operator, it is doubtful that the transaction partner who received the tax invoices from the Plaintiff would have pretended to have received the remaining construction works among the new construction works in the instant case and would not have received the instant tax invoices differently from the fact.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu34541 Disposition of revocation, such as non-value added tax deduction

AAAA

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap6230 decided October 18, 2012

May 8, 2013

May 29, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. A port consumption shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's disposition rejecting the refund of the input tax amount of value-added tax of 000 won on the second preliminary return of 2010 against the plaintiff on January 3, 2011 and the disposition imposing additional tax of 00 won shall be revoked.

Does

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This court's decision is based on the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for adding the following details to the 5th, 11th, and 7th, and 6th, the 5th, 13th, and 7th, and the 13th, and this is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“F) According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by this court on the White Certified Construction Corporation, and on March 2, 2010, 2010, the New Construction Corporation had already been completed as a whole on the part of the instant New Construction Corporation, and at that point, it is deemed that it had not been further conducted on the part of the instant New Construction Corporation.

G) Of the instant new construction works, those who were contracted with the Plaintiff and carried out the remaining construction works from the Plaintiff appear to be B, and there is no objective material that B is deemed to be the officer and employee of static Construction. In addition, B stated that the time when the investigation was conducted by the Plaintiff was conducted by the Plaintiff at around March 2010, not 'B08', but 'PPPPP was not entirely carried out from July 2009 when the investigation was conducted by the former, and 'PPPPP was never carried out from July 209.

"h) He testified to the effect that "PP was able to issue a tax invoice in the first instance trial without any construction work as much as the payment for completed portion even after he received most of the construction work from the representative OOO of the plaintiff, and later there was a belief that he would have suffered a lot of damages due to the failure to issue the tax invoice on the wind closed by OOOO, and that he did not issue the purchase tax invoice from OO engineering, and that as he could not issue the purchase tax invoice from OO engineering, it is doubtful that it would have received the instant tax invoice from MaO Construction as if he received the remaining construction work from the plaintiff during the new construction of this case."

Then, the plaintiff's claim in this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.