Whether the other party is a bona fide business operator who trades without knowledge of a disguised business operator

Inasmuch as there are sufficient circumstances to suspect whether the actual contractor of the construction of the instant building is the actual contractor of the construction of the instant building, and whether the disguised supplier mainly engaged in the granting of a construction license, it cannot be deemed that there was no negligence due to the omission of knowing the fact

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act:

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 7, 2001 against the Plaintiff on February 7, 2005 is revoked.

1. Disposition imposing value-added tax of this case

A. In constructing a leased building on the ○○○○○ Dong, ○○○○○○○-dong, the Plaintiff submitted three tax invoices of KRW 254,545,45 on the total value of supply issued by ○○ Development among the two years in 2001, on the ground that construction work was subcontracted to ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○ Development”) and the construction work was paid, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount.

B. However, as the actual entrepreneur who newly built the above building was ○○ and issued only in the name of ○○ Development, the Defendant merely lent the name of ○○ Development to the Plaintiff, and the said tax invoice constitutes a case where details are different from the facts, denied the input tax deduction pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act, and imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 44596,360 for the second period of February 7, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 9, 10, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful as it is in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the plaintiff concluded a construction contract with ○○○ with the intent of the plaintiff to conclude a construction contract on the above building between ○○ Development and ○○○, and there is no negligence on the part of the plaintiff's failure to know that the name was entered in the tax invoice, and therefore, the defendant denied the input tax deduction for the above tax invoice

(b) Related statutes;

○ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 1 Tax Invoice

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he shall deliver an invoice stating the matters falling under each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as “tax invoice”) to the person who receives the supply as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That in the case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the delivery time may vary:

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person provided;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

Article 17 Tax Amount to be paid

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as "paid tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "purchase tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "sales tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of total tax invoices by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or an input tax amount on the portion of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties in the entries on the list of total tax invoices by customer submitted: Provided, That the input tax amount in such cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

2. An input tax amount for expenditure not directly related to the business.

C. Determination

An entrepreneur who actually supplies and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun.

On the other hand, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Contract was signed and sealed by the Plaintiff on July 201, 201, the Plaintiff entered the construction contract with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Contract with the 420,000 won which was actually signed and sealed by the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Construction Contract with the 5st 6th 5st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 13th 2001.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.