early 209west3813 ( December 15, 2009)

Whether or not a false tax invoice has been received for the provision of construction services

a tax invoice issued by an individual on the data basis that the actual receipt of a tax invoice issued by the individual on the data constitutes a false tax invoice.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Ansan ○

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 14,170,490 for the first period of October 1, 2007 against the Plaintiff on October 1, 2009 (which appears to be a clerical error on October 12, 2009 as written complaint) shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff’s return and payment of value-added tax for the first period of 2007

(1) The plaintiff is a business operator who provides ○○○-gu ○○○○-ro 3 16-58 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 16-58 ○○○○○○○○ 1st floor of an officetel in the name of ○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○

(2) In the first taxable period of 2007, when the Plaintiff concluded the instant public sugar repair contract with △△△ Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted Company”) and paid the construction cost, the Plaintiff received three copies of the tax invoice (the total supply price of KRW 77.8 million; hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) on June 30, 2007 under the name of the Nonparty Company, and deducted the input tax amount of KRW 780,000 equivalent to the above supply value from the output tax amount, and filed and paid the value-added tax for the first taxable period of 207.

B. Defendant’s correction and notification of value-added tax

On September 1, 2008, the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office prepared a report on the completion of data investigation that the tax invoice of this case, which was registered in the name of the non-party company, appears to be a tax invoice issued without real transaction, as a result of tracing the non-party company as a suspect of material transaction. Accordingly, the defendant considered the tax invoice of this case as a processing tax invoice, and deducted the above input tax amount, and notified the plaintiff on October 1, 2009 that the value-added tax of 14,170,490 won was corrected and notified (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 11, 13, 15, 24, Eul evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(i)The plaintiff's assertion

On May 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the agent of the non-party company for the public sugar Repair Corporation (hereinafter “the construction of this case”). The construction of this case was completed with the work of the non-party company as the site manager of the non-party company. The Plaintiff paid 7,80,000,000 won as construction price, and the YellowA issued and issued the tax invoice in the name of the non-party company to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the tax invoice of this case was issued in the above ordinary transaction, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which regarded it as the non-party company’s tax invoice, was unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The non-party company issued a processed tax invoice in the name of the non-party company as a material supporting the issuance of the processed tax invoice without actually running the business. The construction of this case was not the non-party company but the sulfurA executed by the company. After completing the construction of this case, the issue of whether to issue the tax invoice was raised, the company issued and issued the processed tax invoice

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i)Status, etc. of an external company;

(a)The extra company was established on April 3, 2006 for the purpose of manufacturing machinery parts, etc. and added construction and interior construction work as the objective business on July 11, 2007, and closed ex officio on December 31, 2007.

(b)YA shall be appointed as a director of the non-party company on July 11, 2007 on the corporate register of the non-party company, and was registered as the director on the 12th of the same month, and previously engaged in activities such as the Speaker, facility, landscaping, etc.

(2) Conclusion of the instant construction contract

YellowA entered into three construction contracts with the Plaintiff under the name of the non-party company to repair the public sugar of this case, and the content thereof are as follows.

(a)Date of contract: on May 7, 2007, construction records: Salt embankments, repair works, etc., and construction period: from May 7, 2007 to June 30, 2007; the construction cost: KRW 50 million (excluding value-added tax).

(b)Date of contract: 207. May 10, 2007, hereinafter referred to as “Fran Sea Sea Disaster Construction; hereinafter referred to as “Fran Sea Water Tank Removal and Manufacture, etc. of Waste Water Tanks; the construction period: From May 10, 2007 to June 30, 2007; the construction cost: 24 million won (excluding value added tax

(c)Date of contract: on May 25, 2007, on clean-water tank cleaning and construction period: on May 25, 2007, from June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2007, on price of construction: 3.8 million won (excluding value-added tax).

(iii)payment of construction costs;

(A) The Plaintiff paid the YellowA total of KRW 7.5 million, KRW 23 million, KRW 1.5 million, KRW 200,000, KRW 2300,000, KRW 14.14.15 million, KRW 207.5 million, KRW 15 million, KRW 1.5 million, KRW 1.5 million, and KRW 1.5 million, KRW 200,000, KRW 230,000, KRW 23 million, June 5, 2007, KRW 207, KRW 18.48,00,000, KRW 1.5 million, and KRW 150,000, KRW 150,000, KRW 150,000, KRW 376,00,000, KRW 2300, KRW 2300, million, KRW 24,007, KRW 17.5 million,205.

(b)YA received the construction cost as above from the Plaintiff and used it as personnel and material costs for the instant construction work.

(C) On July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted 7.780,000 won as value-added tax for the instant construction cost to the Company outside Korea.

(4)Issuance and delivery of the instant tax invoice

The YellowA issued and delivered the instant tax invoice in the name of the non-party company to the Plaintiff after completing the instant construction work.

(v)the results of the tracking of data and the confirmation of related criminal cases with respect to the foreign firms;

(a)Around September 2008, the Director of the Geumcheon Tax Office investigated Non-Party Company on suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. As a result, the Non-Party Company concluded an investigation to the effect that, even if it did not actually engage in the business during the second taxable period from 2006 to 2007, 18 business operators including the Plaintiff did not supply goods or services, it issued sales tax invoices of KRW 1.1569 billion in total to the 18 business operators including the Plaintiff, and received 610 million purchase tax invoices from 3 business operators, while the Non-Party Company’s representative director was accused of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(b)As a result of the verification of the place of business of the non-party company, the director of the tax office of Geumcheon-gu did not enter into a lease agreement with the non-party company 1659-21, the location of its office.

In relation to the tax invoice, the Plaintiff paid the construction price in cash directly to Yellow A, a person in charge of construction, and transferred the amount equivalent to value-added tax to the non-party company by means of passbook transfer, but the non-party company did not have execution capacity, and determined that the instant tax invoice was a processing tax invoice on the ground that there was no purchase in connection with the instant construction project.

(c)The representative director of the company other than the company and the non-party company's representative director ParkB made a false entry that goods or services are supplied to all business partners including the plaintiff, and then submitted them at the time of filing a return of the first half-yearly value added tax in 2007, which was charged for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and the summary order was finalized upon receiving the summary order from the ○○ Southern District Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap 3 to 8, Gap 9-1 to 6, Gap 10, 11, Eul 12-1 to 4, Gap 13, Gap 14-1 to 10, Gap 15, Gap 16-1, Eul 16-2, Eul 17-23, Eul 3 through 6, Eul 7-1 to 4, each of the statements, witness yellowA and yellowCC's testimony, the whole purport of pleadings, and the whole purport of arguments.

D. Determination

(1)In full view of the facts recognized as above and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, it is recognized that the construction of this case was executed by the Yellowa and that the non-party company provided only the name of the supplier of this case without involvement in the construction of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice stating differently from the facts.

(a)As to the fact that the foreign company issued the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff with respect to the instant project without any actual transaction, a summary order which found the Defendant guilty in the relevant criminal case was finalized.

(b)In light of the fact that the head of the Geumcheon District Tax Office, around September 2008, pursuant to the results of tracking and investigating the facts suspected of data, the company did not actually execute the construction and only issued the tax invoice, and there is no evidence to prove that the non-party company actually operated the business during the existence of the company, it seems that the non-party company did not have the ability to execute the construction of this case

(c)YA was not a director of the non-party company at the time of the instant construction contract and was registered as a director in the corporate register of the non-party company.

(d)The extra company is the company whose original purpose is the manufacture of machinery parts, and the addition of the construction business and the interior construction business to the intended business is also after the instant construction work.

(e)YA has executed the similar construction works before the instant construction works, etc. individually, and in the process of the instant construction works, it appears that the Plaintiff received the construction costs from the Plaintiff and independently used them as personnel and material costs, etc.

(f)In the course of an investigation under suspicion of material injury, the Company was unable to submit any material related to the purchase of the material purchased from the Customer, including a tax invoice, for the material purchased from the Customer in connection with the Project in this case.

(2) In the absence of special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount, unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier, and the person claiming for the deduction or refund of the input tax amount is obliged to prove that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier on the part of of the supplier on a disguised name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

However, with respect to the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the supplier listed in the instant tax invoice was different from the actual ones, each testimony made by the witness YA and YellowCC is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(iii)In the case of a suit

The instant disposition, which the Defendant issued a notice of correction and notification of value-added tax, is lawful, after deducting the input tax amount equivalent to the value of supply on the instant tax invoice.

3.In conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.