Daegu District Court 201Guhap3083 (2012.05.02)

National Tax Service Review Division 2011-0148 (Law No. 279, 2011)

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff played an intermediary sales role in the instant construction project.

The Plaintiff is merely a person forming a nominal legal relationship with a business entity A and B, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff is a person who actually supplied or received the instant application from a business entity (B).

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu1205 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the Gu Tax Office

Daegu District Court Decision 201Guhap3083 Decided May 2, 2012

November 16, 2012

December 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on June 1, 201 against the plaintiff on June 1, 201 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following (2) to the fifth (5) 19th of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) thus, the same is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. The addition;

(5) The date of issuance of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff is June 15, 2006 and the 30th of that month. The day when the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice to the O semiconductor. The day when the Plaintiff issued the tax invoice to the Plaintiff is July 15, 2006. The day when the contract was made with the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 00 of the Plaintiff’s price claim for the O semiconductor between the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the O semiconductor, to the Plaintiff’s payment of the Plaintiff’s debt for the payment of the Plaintiff’s price for the O semiconductor. The day when the contract was made with the Plaintiff’s payment of the amount of KRW 00 out of the amount of the Plaintiff’s payment claim for the O semiconductor, by the method of transferring it to XX, July 24, 2006. The day when the Plaintiff’s payment of the tax invoice was substantially supplied to the Y or to the O semiconductor’s semiconductor, which is difficult to view in light of the fact that the above contract was made between the Plaintiff and the O’s payment contract was made.

(6) The Plaintiff’s representative director’s confirmation document prepared at the time of the tax investigation on April 201 was prepared differently from the fact that it was more favorable for tax officials to recognize the number of false tax invoices. However, on June 9, 2011, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that, even in the investigation process of the instant case, such as violation of the Police’s Tax Punishment Act, etc., on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not engage in a transaction because it was not a processed transaction, the Plaintiff was not liable for failing to issue a tax invoice even if it did not engage in a transaction with the two companies. The Plaintiff stated to the effect that all the two companies did not engage in a transaction (Evidence No. 10) after the issuance of the tax invoice (No. 10).

(7) Even according to the testimony of the witness KimB of the trial of the party, O semiconductors concluded a business agreement with the seller to sell the products secured by the manufacturer of the process of internalization with the seller as the seller, and concluded a contract to sell them. For the convenience of the supply of parts, product sampling test, etc., the plaintiff is deemed to put the plaintiff into a nominal intermediary transaction between themselves and the seller under the agreement with the plaintiff for the convenience of the supply of parts, product sampling test, etc. In fact, the plaintiff did not purchase and sell the construction contract of this case, and the terms and conditions of each contract of this case were not determined, but merely purchased and sold the sample test, etc. of the construction products of this case for OO semiconductors. Thus, even if the plaintiff is deemed to be an intermediary transaction between XX and OO semiconductors, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually supplied or supplied the construction product of this case to the person who actually supplied the goods to the supplier.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.