1. The Defendant’s value-added tax of KRW 149,769,720 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on July 15, 2015.

Details of the disposition

원고는 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 회사이고, B 주식회사(이하 ‘B’이라 한다)는 2000. 8. 22.부터 2010. 12. 20. 폐업할 때까지 토공사업 등을 영위한 회사이다.

B The 18 construction works, as described in attached Form 1, were subcontracted by the Plaintiff.

On May 30, 2010 and June 10, 2010, the Plaintiff received from B the tax invoice of KRW 858,377,597 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in total, the value of supply as indicated in the following table (the unit: the construction site “site” refers to the construction works; hereinafter “market construction site”) and then deducted the input tax amount, thereby filing a return and payment of the first-year value-added tax for 2010.

CD E E E E HF conducted an investigation into the part of the first value-added tax in 2010 against the Plaintiff from June 25, 2015 to July 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff was unfairly entitled to input tax deduction by issuing a tax invoice without having received construction services from B; and (b) on July 15, 2015, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 149,769,720 (including additional taxes) of value-added tax of KRW 149,769,720 (including additional taxes) in 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Board of Audit and Inspection on August 21, 2015, but was dismissed on December 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-10, 42, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including above numbers), and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as a whole, Plaintiff B’s assertion that the disposition of this case is legitimate is legitimate, and the construction of the issue was suspended after June 2010. Thus, Plaintiff B’s supplier of the service listed in the tax invoice as to ingredients between May 2010 is Eul.

Therefore, this issue does not constitute a false tax invoice by a supplier.

Of the defendant's tax invoice, Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 are authorized by the field manager B according to the plaintiff's coercion, and the issues are the issues.