Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap74517 ( August 25, 2016)

Administrative trials are not bound by the facts of non-prosecution disposition by the prosecutor, but can recognize the facts opposed to the prosecutor's free evaluation by evidence.

(See the judgment of the first instance court) If the tax authorities have proved to the extent that it reasonably acceptable to prove the tax requirements, the taxpayer who contests the illegality of the disposition is in a position to present relevant evidence and materials, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that it conforms to the argument.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 19 of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu64517 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ One other than the director of the tax office

on October 30, 2017

on October 13, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition (including additional taxes) of value-added tax of 00,000,000 for the second term portion of 209 against the plaintiff on July 3, 2014 by the head of the tax office of 00 shall be revoked; the defendant* the head of the tax office* against the plaintiff on July 3, 2014, the first term portion of 00,000,000 for the second term of 20,000,000 for the second term of 20,2010 against the plaintiff.

The imposition of value-added tax (including each additional tax), for the first term of January 201, 201, KRW 00,000,000 for the second term of two years in 201, KRW 170,000 for the first term of one year in 2012, KRW 00,000 for the second term of two years in 200,000,000 for the second term of two years in 2013, KRW 00,000 for the first term of one year in 2013, and each imposition of value-added tax for two years in 200,000,000 for the second term of two years in 209, KRW 200,000 for the business year of 200,000 for the business year of 200,000 for each business year, and each imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first term of two years in 200,000 for each business year (including additional tax).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except to write down some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance or add some of the reasons, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2)

Part to be added or dried.

○ It is difficult to deem that the case exists" in paragraph 2 of the 6th judgment of the first instance court. The following is added:

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the content of the design consulting completion report is only evidence for tax accounting, and thus, it cannot be concluded that there is no transaction itself, solely because it differs from the substance. However, if it is difficult to recognize credibility in light of the content and preparation process of the design consulting completion report, etc. without any objective evidence to deem that B provided the Plaintiff with the service under the design development agreement of this case, it is difficult to recognize that B provided the Plaintiff with the service under the design development agreement of this case, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is unacceptable.

○ It is difficult to see that there is a "on the part of the 7th judgment of the first instance court," and the same shall apply as follows.

It is difficult to see that the advisory contract of this case prepared by the Plaintiff and AA is merely evidence for the Plaintiff’s tax accounting, and the Plaintiff’s employee did not accurately state the rights and obligations between the Plaintiff and AA, and only stated the Plaintiff’s employee as appropriate, and thus, it does not accord with the substance to determine the existence of the contract by strictly viewing the contents of the advisory contract of this case and examining whether the service was provided as stated therein. However, it is natural to examine the details and contents of the advisory contract of this case or the overseas training report prepared by the Plaintiff’s employee, and to determine whether to provide the service by examining whether there was any objective evidence as to whether the service was provided to the Plaintiff under the advisory contract of this case. Thus, the above assertion by the Plaintiff

In addition, when the Plaintiff’s employee went to take overseas training, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that AA provides services according to the instant advisory contract, as it is proved by the Plaintiff’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and the testimony at this court of the EE. However, even if D and EE made a statement to the above purport, there is no objective evidence to deem AA to have borne d and E and EE expenses for d and staying abroad when the Plaintiff’s employee went to stay abroad. Furthermore, even if A and E and E were to bear part of the expenses for d and staying abroad, it cannot be deemed that A had provided all services under the instant advisory contract merely because it is unclear to what extent the amount is. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.