Seoul Administrative Court-2012-Gu 4350 ( April 24, 2014)

Whether a tax invoice is false or not, and a disposition of bonus therefor is lawful.

원고는 2010년도 법인세 신고서에 첨부된 재무상태표에 김CC에 대한 채권을 계상하지 않은 점 등의 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고가 사외유출금액으로 인정한 ㅇㅇㅇㅇ원이 원고의 김CC에 대한 채권으로 존재한다거나 원고가 이를 김CC로부터 회수하였다고 인정하기도 어려움

2014Nu4964 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA management consulting Co., Ltd.

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap43550 decided April 24, 2014

February 26, 2015

March 19, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On January 26, 2012, the notification of changes in the income amount(OOO) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2012 is revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows. Thus, it is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

○ 4) Part 20 (2) The term "contract between the Plaintiff and BB public service" is "2) the contract between KimCC and BB public service."

In Part 5, "B public service and the plaintiff" in Part 11 of Part 5 are "B public service and KimCC".

○ 7 pages 16 of the 7th page "Provision of construction services" means "Provision of construction services".

Pursuant to Section 1 of Section 8, "I can find out in the above facts of recognition", the part of Section 5-10 "(i)" is as follows. "I can find out in the above facts of recognition," and "I can find out by the above facts of recognition."

① At the instant complaint, the Plaintiff had already been executed by another construction business operator at the time of entering into the instant contract with KimCC as well as the instant complaint. However, after entering into the instant contract, BB public officials agreed to settle and pay the amount of the pre-determined construction work to the former construction business operator. However, on March 25, 2010, the Plaintiff, on behalf of BB public officials, paid the pre-existing construction business operator the amount of the pre-existing construction work cost and processed it as a loan for BB public officials, and the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have paid the pre-existing KRW 50,000,000, which was part of the construction cost under the instant contract to BB public officials, as part of the pre-existing construction work cost under the instant contract + KRW 50,000,000,000,0000,0000 paid to 20,0000,0000 won to 20,0000,000 won under the instant contract.

However, there is no objective evidence to prove that BB public service agreed to pay the construction cost after entering into the instant contract to the existing construction business operator (the instant contract does not include any content thereof and no other agreement), and there is no financial data that the Plaintiff paid the sum of the pre-existing construction business operators, such as the instant clause and the instant case where BB public service did not implement the instant contract, and it is difficult to recognize that BB public service provided the pre-existing construction business operator the above agreement, or that the Plaintiff borrowed the pre-existing construction business operator with the above pre-existing construction business operator for BB public service. In addition, the amount remitted from May 26, 2010 to B public service is not only the amount claimed by the Plaintiff as the pre-existing construction business operator, but also the amount claimed by the Plaintiff from the pre-existing construction business operator for BB public service, but also the amount claimed by 20OD from the pre-existing construction business operator for BB public service.

Next, the plaintiff executed a provisional attachment against the property of KimCC, received some dividends from the compulsory execution procedure against the claims of KimCC (Evidence No. 9), but the actual operator of the plaintiff was the son KimF, who is a son of KimCC, and the auditor of the plaintiff was the sonG, who is a son of KimCC, and the plaintiff did not include the claim against KimCC in the statement of financial position attached to the report of corporate tax in 2010 (Evidence No. 10) [only included only the claim against the above provisional attachment claim or payment order accepted or the claim amount appropriated in the plaintiff's account book in 2011], and there is no ground or material to deem that the plaintiff included the above claim or payment order or the amount appropriated in the plaintiff's account book in the above claim or payment order accepted, and the above payment order and the dividend payment period received after the lawsuit of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was the plaintiff's claims collection or the payment order from the OCC as the claim amount against the plaintiff.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.