Daejeon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-105611 ( December 15, 2016)

Cho-2015-former-1502 ( October 14, 2015)

The purchase tax invoice of this case is not the rent of each owned equipment, but the amount of profit distributed;

The plaintiff is deemed to have agreed to distribute profits under the relevant agreement, and the total value of supply of this case does not constitute the deduction from the input tax amount or inclusion in deductible expenses when imposing the value-added tax.

Article 32 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Daejeon High Court 2017Nu10096 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

○○○○ Corporation

○ Head of tax office

National Rotations

April 27, 2017

May 25, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's decision on December 4, 2014 is revoked. The value-added tax of 209 for the second term, value-added tax of 11,764,810 for the second term, value-added tax of 1,820,910 for the first term, value-added tax of 2,010 for the second term, value-added tax of 2,049,240 for the second term, value-added tax of 2,010, value-added tax of 15,41,60 for the first term, value-added tax of 18,184,970 for the second term, 205, value-added tax of 15,481, value-added tax of 2,481, 460 for the second term, 202, value-added tax of 13,81, 207, 2013 for the business year of 2013.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination as to the part of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial, as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant disposition, based on the instant letter of agreement, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s payment of construction equipment rent to ○○○ and Doz. is a profit distribution amount, is unlawful, although the Plaintiff owned both the Plaintiff’s construction machinery and ancillary equipment, and the ancillary equipment is owned by ○○○ and Doz. However, the instant letter of agreement is written that the Plaintiff, ○○○, and Doz. jointly purchased the said construction machinery and ancillary equipment.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged in the first instance court, it is reasonable to view that the content of the joint investment agreement between the Plaintiff and ○○○, and Doz. as indicated in the instant written agreement is not false, and that the sum of the supply value in the instant case was not paid as actual equipment rent but paid as profit distribution among the partners. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rectification of corporate tax on the premise that the total value of the instant supply in the instant case is an income distribution of profit to ○○ and ○○○. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant disposition is unlawful, since the Defendant failed to bear the burden of proof as to the taxable

On the other hand, the corporate tax in the disposition of this case is imposed by denying the inclusion of expenses for the reason that the defendant cannot be deemed as the equipment rental fee claimed by the plaintiff, and further, it is not necessary to prove the taxation requirement for the amount excluded from the inclusion of expenses as above (the above amount is deemed as a matter of principle included in the plaintiff's gross income, and it is excluded from the taxation subject to corporate tax or expenses). Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.