early 208west0610 (2009.03.09)

The legitimacy of the assertion that there was a real subcontractor on the received processing tax invoice in data

However, it is difficult to regard the subcontractor as a subcontractor who actually performed the construction work due to the fact that the subcontractor was awarded a contract for the removal work, but the subcontractor was in excess of the tax invoice from the data, and that the subcontractor was accused of the financial statements, loss margin, and material facts of the subcontractor.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of December 3, 2007 against the plaintiff is revoked each disposition of 66,655,750 won of corporate tax for the business year 2004, 301,567, and 490 won of corporate tax for the business year 2005, and notification of income change for the business year 2004 (income ○○○, income amount 223,300,000), and notification of income change for the business year 2005 (income ○○, income amount 97,791,800).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each of the evidence A, No. 1 to 3, No. 1, and No. 2

It can be recognized by integrating 1 to 14, 2 to 11, and 3 to 50.

가. 원고는 건축물 해체공사업 등을 목적으로 설립된 법인으로서 2004. 10. 30.부터 2005. 6. 30.까지 사이에 TTTT 주식회사(이하 'TTTT'라 한다)로부터 공급가액 합계 633，250，200원(부가가치세 포함, 이하 같다), ■■산업개발 주식회사(이하 '■■산업개발'이라 하고, 'TTTT' 및 '■■산업개발'을 통틀어 '소외 회사들'이라 한다)로부 터 공급가액 합계 615，841，600원 상당의 별지 제1, 2목록 기재 각 세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라 한다)를 교부받아 이 사건 각 세금계산서 합계 금액 1，249，091，800원(=2004년 제2기 관련 223，300，000원 + 2005년 1기 관련 1，025，791，800 원, 이하 '이 사건 매입금액'이라 한다)을 손금으로 산입하여 위 각 과세연도 법인세 신고를 마쳤다.

B. The defendant considers that each of the tax invoices of this case was issued without actual transactions as the non-party companies accused of the non-party companies were issued without actual transactions. The defendant imposed and notified the non-party company's input tax amount in 2004 without deducting the input tax amount and revising the value-added tax, 30, 705, 770, 135, 92,010 won for the second term portion in 205, and 135, 992, and 010 won for the first term portion in 205. However, the purchase amount in this case was excluded from deductible expenses, and was treated as a bonus for the representative ○○ (28,000,000 won for the supply amount in 205, 204, 665, 750 won for the business year 204, 301, 3067, and 490 won for the business year 205, 2004, 2004, 3097.

C. On February 15, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 15, 2008, but was dismissed on March 9, 2009.

2. Whether or not the dispositions for the dismissal of this case are legal.

The plaintiff is a corporation specializing in the removal of a building, and its own personnel or equipment.

를 보유하지 않고 공사를 수주하게 되면 하도급업체를 선정하여 하도급업체가 공사를 수행하는 방법으로 사업을 운영하고 있는데, 2004. 10.부터 2005. 6.까지 주식회사 ▣▣▣건설(이하 '▣▣▣건설'이라 한다)로부터 잠실◈◈아파트 재건축현장 등 4곳의 재 건축 ・ 재개발 현장의 철거공사를 수주하여 ◎◎건설중기 주식회사(이하 '◎◎건설중기' 라 한다)를 실질적으로 운영하는 이○석에게 재하도급을 주어 위 각 철거공사를 마치 도록 하면서, 다만 이○석이 본인의 세금을 피할 목적으로 소외 회사들의 사업자등록 증, 사업자등록증명원, 통장사본 등을 제시하면서 소외 회사들 명의 세금계산서 발급을 요구함에 따라 원고는 이○석이 기성고에 따라 공사대금을 청구하면 소외 회사들 명의 세금계산서를 교부받고 소외 회사들 은행 계좌로 세금계산서 공급가액 상당액을 송금 하여 주었다.

Therefore, it is acceptable to deduct input tax amounts by deeming each of the instant tax invoices to have been received differently from the facts. However, even if the intention of payment is verified through financial transaction data, each of the instant dispositions, which took place by deeming the purchase amount to be a false transaction unrelated to real transactions, as non-taxation, is unlawful.

Even if the value of each of the tax invoices of this case paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff is not recognized as the construction cost, there is no trace of returning back the money paid to the Plaintiff to the non-party company, and there is a separate person to whom the said money actually belongs, based on the evidence No. 8, evidence No. 10-1 through 3, ○○○’s statement, financial data, etc. Thus, the purchase price of this case should be disposed of to the non-party company, which is the actual owner of the said money, and at least to the ○○ Red, Gangwon-gu, Kimjin-jin, ○, ○○-jin, ○○, ○○-man, ○○, or ○○○○○, which is the actual owner

(b) Related statutes;

(c) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the statements mentioned in Gap evidence 9, 10, Eul evidence 5, and 6, the following facts can be acknowledged:

(1) The Plaintiff is a corporation that specializes in construction business, and does not have professional human resources and removal equipment. Upon receiving a subcontract for the removal work, the Plaintiff operated the project by the method of sub-subcontracting to the companies equipped with specialized human resources and removal equipment.

(2) 원고는 ▣▣▣건설로부터 잠실◈◈, ◈◈1구역, ◈◈공원, ◈◈한라 각 재건축 ・ 재개발 현장 철거공사(이하 '이 사건 각 철거공사'라 한다)를 하도급 받은 다음, 이를

(3) The Plaintiff received the respective tax invoices from the off-the-counter companies, and subsequently transferred the total amount equivalent to the value of supply, including value added tax, due to the transfer of banks in the name of the out-of-the-counter companies, which is difficult to issue the tax invoices, such as the details of the respective account transfers in the attached

금융 계화추적 결과에 의하면 TTTT 명의 계좌로 입금된 금원 전액은 총 51회에 걸쳐 농업협동조합 ◇◇◇지점, 제일은행 ◇◇◇지점, 기업은행 ◇◇지점 등에서 출금 되었는데, 그 중 5억 6，314만 원 상당은 44회에 걸쳐 현금으로 출금되었고, 나머지 7，010만 원 상당 중 1，050만 원은 2004. 12. 15. 박○홍(▣▣▣건설 직원)계좌로 이체 되고 960만 원은 2004. 12. 27.을 비롯하여 3회에 걸쳐 10만 원권 수표 96매로 출금 직접 시행하지 아니하고 재하도급을 주어 공사를 마쳤는데, 각 철거공사별로 특정 업체에 일괄 재하도급을 주는 방식이 아니라, 여러 업체에 나누어 재하도급을 주는 방식 을 취하였던 것으로 보인다.

원고가 제출한 자료(갑제5, 6, 7호증)에 의하면 원고는 ▣▣▣건설로부터 이 사건 각 철거공사를 아래 표 기재와 같이 합계 5，564，300，000원(부가가치세 불포함)에 도급 받은 다음, 소외 회사들 등에 합계 5，034，019，818원(부가가치세 불포함)에 재하도급을 주었다는 것이다(그 중 소외 회사들에 대한 공사대금 합계는 1，135，538，000원이며, 원고는 소외 회사들로부터 뿐만 아니라, 다른 하도급 업체들로부터도 각 공급가액 상당 의 세금계산서를 모두 교부받았던 것으로 보인다).

(수취인 불명)되었으며, 5，000만 원은 2005. 8. 2.에 2회에 걸쳐 2，000만 원권, 3，000만 원권 각 수표로 출금된 다음 강○국(근무처 등 불명), 김○진(건설업체인 ▢▢건설 주식회사에 근무하였다가, 2007. 3. 31. 퇴사) 명의 계좌로 각 입금되었다. 또한, ■■산업개발 명의 계화로 입금된 금원 전액은 농업협동조합 ◇◇◇지점, 제일은행 자◇◇◇점 등에서 총 42회에 걸쳐 출금되었었는데, 그 중 5억 2，984만 원 상당은 40회에 걸쳐 현금으로 출금되었고, 나머지 8，600만 원 상당 중 3，600만 원은 ■■산업개발 계좌에 2005. 4. 21. 수표로 입금되었다가 같은 날 전액 현금으로 인출되었으며, 5，000만 원은 2005. 7. 25. 임○빈(주식회사 ***미디어프로덕션 근무) 계좌에 수표로 입금되었다.

(4) The head of Nowon-gu Tax Office, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the non-party company, conducted an investigation into the actual representative of the non-party company and the non-party company, and confirmed the fact that the non-party company issued the tax invoice without any actual construction work, including the tax invoice of this case, and accused the non-party company and the maximum amount of ○○ on June 2, 2006 for the suspected violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (the maximum ○○ was, at the time of the investigation of May 16, 2006, the tax invoice of this case against the plaintiff issued in the name of the non-party company for the first taxable period of 271, 2004, 205, all of the processed tax invoice of this case was the tax invoice, and made the payment to be deposited through the bank account to disguise the false transaction, and deposited it to the bank account that was returned in cash or made by the customer before the deposit of the money. The maximum ○○ was accused of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act or other contents.

Accordingly, from May 9, 2007 to August 17, 2005, the Defendant, the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff, conducted a tax invoice tracking investigation with respect to the Plaintiff on the basis of the investigation period from May 17, 2004 as the investigation period. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff deemed that each of the tax invoices of this case was received without real transaction, and notified the Plaintiff of the disposition at a penalty of KRW 91,708,400, and the Plaintiff did not object to the investigation (the Defendant determined that the tax invoice for other purchase and sale of the Plaintiff except the Nonparty Company was based on the ordinary transaction period).

D. Determination

If a tax invoice on a part of any of the costs imposed by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared in falsity without a real transaction by the defendant who is the tax authority, and the taxpayer's use of the cost claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment have been proved to the extent that it is reasonable that the other party to the cost was false, it is necessary to prove that such cost has been actually paid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 2004Du14168, Jun. 10, 2005).

According to the above facts, the non-party company was found to have prepared a false tax invoice of this case on the so-called data, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff actually subcontracted part of the removal work of this case to the ○○○○○○○○ (or the Man○ Construction Heavy), and received the construction cost in the name of the non-party company through the non-party company. However, each of the tax invoices of this case was received in the name of the non-party company. Thus, each of the tax invoices of this case is a processing transaction that receives only the tax invoice without a real transaction with the non-party company. Thus, the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff paid part of each of the removal work of this case to the ○○○ or Man○ Construction Heavy, which was actually executed by the Corporation and paid the corresponding expenses to the ○○, etc.

살피건대, 앞서 든 각 증거 및 을제3, 4, 8, 9호증, 을제10호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기 재와 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 이 사건 각 철거공사 공사기간이 속하는 2004, 2005 사업연도 ◎◎건설중기 대차대조표(을제3호증) 에 따르면 ◎◎건설중기는 고정자산 중 건설용 장비가 전혀 없어 이 사건 각 철거공사를 할 수 있는 장비를 보유하고 있지 않았던 것으로 보이고, 이○석은 또한 당시 건설 업 등의 사업자등록도 이루어지지도 않은 상태이고 이 사건 매입금액 규모의 공사를 수행할 능력이 있다고 보이지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 3회에 걸쳐 자료상으로 고발된바 있으며 현재 36억 7，900만 원 상당 국세가 결손처분된 자인 점，② 원고는 이○석 내지 ◎◎건설중기가 실제 이 사건 각 철거공사 일부를 하였다고 주장하면서도 하도급계약서, 장비 사용내역, 작업 일지, 폐기물처리확인서 및 공사대금 지급자료 등에 관한 객관적인 자료들을 전혀 제시하지 못하고 있는 점{원고는 이 사건 소제기에 앞서 과세관청에 이○석으로부터 하도급 받아 공사를 하였다는 내용의 박○홍, 임○빈, 강원국작성의 각 확인서(을제10호증의 1 내지 3)를 제출하였으나, 위 각 확인서의 작성자들 모두 사업자등록조차 하지 않은 자들로서 그 중 박○홍, 임○빈은 각 ▣▣▣건설, 주식회사 KKK미디어프로덕션에서 근무하였었다}, ③ 원고는 실제 이 사건 각 철거공사가 이루어졌음에 비추어 사회통념상 원가는 발생할 수밖에 없다 할 것이어서 그에 상응하는 원가가 인정되어야 한다는 것이나, 원고는 ▣▣▣건설로부터 이 사건 각 철거공사를 도급 받아 소외 회사들뿐만 아니라 다른 업체들에게도 하도급을 주었다는 것이어 서, 다른 업체들에 의해서도 공사가 충분히 이루어질 수 있었던 점，④ 이 사건 매입금 액이 합계 12억 원 이상의 거액임에도 원고가 소외 회사들에 지급한 돈이 다시 실제 공사를 하였다는 이○석 등에 지급되었음에 관한 자료도 전혀 없을 뿐만 아니라, 오히려 이례적으로 대부분이 현금으로 인출되고 일부는 원청업체인 ▣▣▣건설 측에 지급되기도 하는 등 원고가 소외 회사들 계좌로 이 사건 매입금액 상당액을 입금하였다고 하여 실거래가 있었다고 단정하기 어려운 점 등 제반 사정을 감안하면, 원고의 주장에 부합하는 갑제4, 5, 8호증의 각 기재 및 증인 이○석의 각 증언은 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할만한 증거가 없다.

In addition, according to the above evidence and facts, each purchase amount of this case constitutes "a case where it is unclear whether it belongs to one of the plaintiff and a third party" under the proviso of Article 106 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act because most of the non-party companies deposited into the accounts of the name of the non-party company, were withdrawn in cash, and the rightful owner was not identified, and some of the third party was deposited in the account under the name of the non-party company." Thus, pursuant to Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the defendant must dispose of the purchase amount of this case (excluding 28,00,000,000, which was recognized as an ordinary transaction) as a bonus to the plaintiff's representative YO.

Therefore, the principal of the plaintiff is not well-grounded, and it is reasonable to dismiss the case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.