The case holding that the input tax amount shall not be deducted because the supplier and the supply value are tax invoices different from the fact.

Where the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party company Gap for the construction of the building of this case with the price of KRW 16,570,000, but in filing the final return of the value-added tax of this case, if the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 29,800,000 from the non-party company Eul and submitted the tax invoice, the details of the tax invoice are different from the fact that the construction cost is not only the supplier but also the construction cost, and thus, the Plaintiff entered into a construction by borrowing the name of the company Eul because the company Gap did not have a construction license, and even if the contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and the company Eul, the input tax

Article 17 (2) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Park Jong-sik, Attorney Park Il-hwan et al.

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 88Gu415 delivered on May 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party 16,570,000 won for the structural building of the building of this case with the non-party 3 limited partnership company (hereinafter referred to as the "Tulung Industries"). However, in filing the final return of the value-added tax of this case, the plaintiff received and submitted a tax invoice from the non-party 29,80,000 won from the non-party 4 Maduk General Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Maduk General Construction"), and the Maduk General Construction was merely the name holder and did not actually perform the construction work. In light of the records, the above fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules

In addition, if the facts are true, the above tax invoice is different from the facts, and thus it cannot be deducted from the input tax amount. Therefore, the judgment below is justified. In this case, since the contents of the tax invoice are different from the facts of the supplier's and the construction cost amount, the interest industry was carried out by borrowing the name of broadband Comprehensive Construction, and thus, the contract form (Evidence 1) corresponding to the above tax invoice was prepared between the plaintiff and the broadband Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd., the same applies to the case where the plaintiff actually entered into a contract form (Evidence 1) and the contract form of this case was partially subcontracted for the construction project.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the court below erred in the fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below, or that there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles in the judgment below, based on the facts not accepted by

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)