National Tax Service Review Division 201-0202 ( October 26, 2012)

The extension of the building of this case cannot be viewed as the supply of goods separately.

In the purchase of the instant building from a major shareholder, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice for the entire building of this case, even though the supply of goods subject to value-added tax cannot be deemed to have been newly made with regard to the extension at the Plaintiff’s expense.

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Revocation of revocation of a disposition to reduce the amount of value-added tax refunded.

XX Co., Ltd

The director of the tax office

October 17, 2012

November 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s decision to reduce the value-added tax amount of KRW 000 to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The HongA is an individual entrepreneur who runs the real estate business under the trade name of Chungcheong Gareale, Y 483-29, namely, “xx483-29”, and the Plaintiff’s major shareholder.

B. On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff acquired 00 m20 m20 m20 m20 m3,134.61 m3,134 m2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application for refund of value-added tax of KRW 000, including the input tax amount of KRW 000,000, when filing a preliminary return of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax on the instant building as follows.

D. The Defendant: (a) confirmed that the Plaintiff had extended the instant building at the Plaintiff’s expense; (b) received input tax deduction for the extension cost of the instant building at that time; and (c) concluded that the Plaintiff filed an application for input tax deduction for the extension cost of the instant building as to the extension portion of the building, deeming that the application for input tax deduction was duplicate; (b) on May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff rendered a decision to reject such refund (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On December 7, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the National Tax Service on December 7, 201, but was dismissed on January 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Even though the Plaintiff applied for the refund of value-added tax on the building of this case lawfully based on the tax invoice issued by transfer of ownership of the building of this case, the Defendant rejected the refund of value-added tax on the building of this case by deeming the above tax invoice as a false tax invoice. The Defendant’s above disposition shall be revoked as unlawful.

(2) Even if the Defendant’s refusal to refund the value-added tax on the building of this case is lawful, since the Plaintiff’s receipt of a tax invoice different from the fact constitutes a case where part of the requisite entry of the tax invoice is mistakenly or mistakenly entered differently from the fact, only the amount equivalent to 1/100 of the value-added tax should be deducted from the refundable tax amount. However, the Defendant deducted the tax invoice processing amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value-added tax amount from the refundable tax amount, and deducted the Plaintiff from the refundable tax amount, deeming that the Plaintiff filed a return of excess refund in an unjust manner. The Defendant’s above disposition should be revoked in

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes concerning the disposition of refusal to refund value-added tax on the extension portion of the instant building provides for the principle of substantial taxation that "the calculation of tax base under tax-related Acts shall apply to the substance without relation to the name or form of income, profit, property, act or transaction."

(6) The Plaintiff’s construction of this case’s construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of construction of 00

(2) As to the imposition of additional tax

Article 22(3)3 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011) provides that "where a tax invoice is issued without being supplied with goods or services, the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply shall be added to the amount of tax payable or deducted from the amount of tax refundable," and Article 47-4(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10621, May 2, 201) provides that "the amount of additional tax on the amount of tax declared in excess of the amount of tax declared in an unjust manner shall be equivalent to 40/100 of the amount of tax declared in excess of the amount of tax declared in an unjust manner."

With respect to this case, although the Plaintiff did not receive goods from HongA concerning the extension portion of the building of this case, it received tax account statement including the extension portion of the building of this case, and filed an application for refund of value-added tax in such unlawful manner as above, and it cannot be deemed that part of the tax account statement was mistakenly entered differently from the fact by mistake or negligence. Thus, the Defendant did not err by deducting 000 won equivalent to 2/100 of the supply value of the extension portion of the building of this case, which is the amount equivalent to 40/100 of the supply value of the building of this case, from the tax invoice processing / the tax invoice processing / the disguised tax, and the amount equivalent to 40/100 of the input tax amount reported in relation to the extension portion of the building of this case, which is the amount equivalent to 40/100 of the supply value of the building of this case, from the amount of tax

3. Conclusion

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