Whether the input tax deduction related to recall is unreasonable, and whether the tax invoice is false from the fact in the land transaction permission area, and the disposition of denying the portion of input tax deduction is legitimate.

The imposition of input tax deduction related to recall is illegal if the tax invoice is different from the facts in the legitimate land transaction permission area, and the disposition denying the input tax portion.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

District Court 2016Guhap7038

ㅇㅇ모터스 주식회사

00. Head of tax office

April 12, 2016

May 10, 2016

1. On October 0, 2014, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 of the value-added tax (including additional tax) for the second term of 2011 against the Plaintiff and KRW 0 of the corporate tax for the business year 2011, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 30% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 70% shall be borne by the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

On October 0, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second term of 2010 (including the additional tax), KRW 0 of the value-added tax for the first term of 201 (including the additional tax), KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second term of 2011 (including the additional tax), and KRW 00 of the corporate tax for the business year 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation established in 1900 for the main purpose of selling imported automobiles, purchased 00 cars from Korea0 Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea00”), sold them to customers, and provided vehicle maintenance services.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a vehicle sales contract with its customers and provided sirens, oil expenses, and traffic services to its customers under the said sales contract. In order to provide the above services, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with its rental car companies, gas stations, and traffic service companies and paid the price. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices equivalent to KRW 0 won during the value-added tax taxable period from the above service companies during the period from February to February 2, 2011 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”), and filed a return and payment of value-added tax by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount on the first tax invoice.

C. The Plaintiff entered into a contract on November, 201 to purchase the said land and a building under construction on or around 201, with respect to exhibition and maintenance factories newly constructed between 00,000,000 0,000 and 0,000,000,000 and 0,000,000,000 won for the land transaction permission zone, and issued a tax invoice in an amount equivalent to 0 won of supply from A during the taxable period of value-added tax for 20,01 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from 200,000,000 won for the amount of input tax on the two tax invoices from output tax amount, and reported and paid

D. On October 0, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff was seeking reimbursement from 000 for rental car, oil expense, and traffic service cost (hereinafter “the call cost” in this case) as the input tax amount related to a business on which no value-added tax is levied; (b) decided not to deduct the input tax amount on the first tax invoice; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of the amount of value-added tax (including additional tax) 00, and 00, value-added tax (including additional tax) on the second tax invoice for the second tax year in 2010; and (d) on the ground that the supplier constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, the Defendant deducted the input tax amount on the second tax invoice for the second half of 201 and notified the Plaintiff of the rectification and notification of the amount of value-added tax for each business year in each business year.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 0, 2015, but was dismissed on October 0, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On the other hand, in relation to the tax invoice 1, the Plaintiff spent the instant call cost in order to perform the obligation under the automobile sales contract with customers, and the Plaintiff’s receipt of the indemnity from the Korean Saturdays is not the cost of providing goods or services, but the Plaintiff paid the call cost incurred by the Plaintiff according to the internal cost burden. In light of the above, the input tax amount related to the call cost of this case does not constitute an input tax amount related to the business of supplying services exempt from value-added tax under Article 17(2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and thus, the relevant input

In relation to the tax invoice 2, the Plaintiff agreed to purchase a newly constructed building from the formerA if he/she obtained permission prior to the land transaction permission. Since the 2 tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff does not constitute a false tax invoice, the relevant input tax amount should be deducted.

Therefore, each taxation that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on October 0, 2014 without deducting the tax invoice 1 and the input tax invoice 2 at issue, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The part on the key tax invoice

However, according to Article 17(2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same), the Plaintiff received one tax invoice following the Plaintiff’s use of a rental car company, gas station, and traffic service company and the payment to the said company. The Plaintiff received the amount equivalent to the input tax amount under the first tax invoice from 000, in full, and the Plaintiff did not issue the tax invoice. Under the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s use of the tax invoice as part of the call service; (b) the Plaintiff did not constitute the input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount; (c) the Plaintiff’s use of compensation for damages to be paid for the goods or services to the said company; and (d) the Plaintiff’s use of compensation for damages to be paid for the said company is not related to the Plaintiff’s purchase tax amount directly related to the Plaintiff’s use of the pertinent tax invoice, but is not related to the Plaintiff’s purchase tax amount.

It is reasonable to view that the input tax amount on the 1st tax invoice of this case is not deducted from the output tax amount.Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without

2) Part on the key 2 tax invoice

A) Facts of recognition

In full view of the entries in Gap evidence 5 to 7 and 16 to 22 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the whole arguments shall be taken into account.

It is recognized that the facts such as the future have been recognized.

JeonA acquired land transaction permission from 2007 to 2008 for the purpose of constructing neighborhood living facilities with 00,000 00 -00 -00 -00 - and 6 parcels, and did not use the said land for the purpose of permission.

00 on October 0, 201, the head of the Gu notified the NA of the obligation to use the said land for the permitted purpose, and the obligation to use the land for which the enforcement fine is imposed if it is not fulfilled.

On October 0, 2011, the Plaintiff decided to purchase from 0-0 and 8 parcels from 0,000,000,000 from 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The building of this case is newly constructed, and when land transaction permission is acquired, the plaintiff purchased the land and the building of this case, and the plaintiff has the supervisory authority over the construction of the building, and the purchase price of the building was paid in advance before land transaction permission is granted.On October 0, 2011, the previousA obtained construction permission for changing the main purpose of the building of this case into the automobile-related facility (maintenance plant) and entered into a construction contract with 00 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "00") on October 0 of the same year.

On October 0, 201, when the said construction was in progress, land transaction permission was rendered to the instant land sales contract. The Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the instant building from AA on the same day with the following contents, and entered into a contract to change the owner from the formerA to the Plaintiff, and at the same time, a contract to change the construction work with the contractor from the former A to the Plaintiff under the new construction contract to the Plaintiff.

B) Determination

According to Article 16 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, if an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, "person who is provided with services" means a person who is provided with services due to contractual or legal grounds. In determining who is "person who is provided with services due to contractual grounds," the parties to the contract which causes the supply of the services and the details thereof, and the payment relationship of the above services shall be taken into consideration. It is possible to consider all other circumstances that are acknowledged as being combined with the purport of the entire pleadings, and that the agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the former 200,000 won and the latter 10,000,000,000 won and 30,000,000 won and 10,000 won and 20,000,000 won and 3,00,000,000 won and 2,00,000 won and 2,00,000 won and 2,00,00 won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 201 and the 0th business year of 2011 against the Plaintiff on October 2014 is justified. Accordingly, the remainder is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.