Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap11942 ( October 17, 2010)

National Tax Service Review Division 2008-0198 ( October 19, 2009)

False tax invoices concerning new construction of buildings;

(as in the first instance judgment), the actual contractor is separate, and the corporation issuing the tax invoice is a disguised entrepreneur mainly carrying on the lending of a construction business license.

2010Nu10565 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

OraA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap11942 Decided February 17, 2010

March 16, 201

March 30, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 132,379,200 for the first term of August 8, 2008 against the plaintiff on 2005 shall be revoked.

The reason for the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited as the reason for this judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition imposing value-added tax of this case is unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact and was not negligent in not knowing the fact even if the name of the tax invoice was disguised, since the plaintiff entered into a construction contract with △ C Co., Ltd. on the construction of the building of this case and paid the construction price to △ C Co., Ltd.

However, the facts that the name of the instant tax invoice was disguised are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Moreover, even if all the evidence submitted during the pleadings of the instant case were examined, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact of false name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit.