This disposition is not a true contract, because it is not a real contract.

The instant construction project appears to have been conducted by the Plaintiff, not by the Plaintiff’s comprehensive delegation from the Plaintiff, by lending only the name of “A” to “B” or by giving a contract to “B”. Therefore, the tax invoice issued by the supplier as “A” constitutes a false tax invoice.

Article 19 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's refusal to refund value-added tax of KRW 103,829,947, 19,677,210 against the plaintiff on July 12, 2005 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or a whole of the arguments.

A. On May 13, 2004, the Plaintiff, a legal entity consisting of the above owners, is to newly construct an apartment 24 households on the ground, 8 owners of the land, ○○-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, ○○-dong, 302-7 and 9 parcels.

B. On August 20, 2004, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for the instant apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) to ○○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”) at KRW 2.760,000 (excluding value-added tax). On February 1, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the instant apartment construction and obtained approval for use.

C. In filing a preliminary return of the value-added tax for the first time in 2005, the Plaintiff filed a return on the same amount of tax as KRW 103,829,947,19,677,210 stated on the purchase tax invoice issued under the name of ○○○○ upon entering the same amount of tax as the amount of tax to be refunded. The Defendant, through its own investigation, did not contract the instant construction to ○○○○○○○○○, but rather directly executed construction by borrowing only the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○. On July 12, 2005, the Plaintiff attached a tax invoice written differently from the fact, and thus, issued a disposition to deduct the input tax amount and rectify the value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On October 10, 2005, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal on February 2, 2006, but was dismissed.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The assertion

The plaintiff argues that it was true that the contract for the construction of this case was made to ○○○○○, but it was because the representative director of the plaintiff, who was actually entrusted with the construction of this case, was comprehensively entrusted with the construction of this case from ○○○○○.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not contract the construction of this case to ○○○○, but leased only the name of ○○○○○○ and directly executed the construction work.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 19 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where an entrepreneur entered differently from the facts, and the phrase "in cases where entered differently from the facts" refers to cases where the requisite entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the parties concerned, notwithstanding the formal entries of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties concerned, with the actual supply of the goods or services or the value, time, etc. thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 19

According to the statement of No. 2, No. 3, and No. 6-2 of this case, the contractor stated the contract for the construction of this case as the plaintiff, the contractor, and the supplier of this case as ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s construction work was indicated respectively. However, according to the statement of evidence No. 4-3, the Plaintiff’s request for the construction of the construction work of this case, the construction work of this case.

3. Conclusion

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