The legitimacy of the assertion that this disposition is improper by issuing a tax invoice unilaterally after the cancellation of the business relationship

It is reasonable to deem that a joint businessman was in the position of joint businessman due to the fact that the Plaintiff was entitled to deduction of input tax amounts related to construction sales, and that the Plaintiff was accused of forgery of private documents that arbitrarily issued a tax invoice, but the disposition of suspicion was issued, etc.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 34,363,920 on August 1, 2006, which the Plaintiff rendered on August 1, 2006, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 13, 2001, the Plaintiff registered as a business operator with the trade name called ○○○○-dong 42-O, ○○○-dong, 2001, and operated the manufacturing and construction business of steel structures, and reported and paid the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax for 1 year 2005 to the Defendant on July 2005.

B. On August 1, 2006, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 34,363,920 on August 1, 2006 of the supply price of KRW 262,00,000, which the Plaintiff issued and delivered to ○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”) during the first taxable period (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on October 26, 2006, but received a decision of dismissal on December 4 of the same year. On March 9, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on March 9, 2007, but received a decision of dismissal as well as a decision of dismissal on October 24 of the same year and filed the instant lawsuit on January 23, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 7 evidence Eul 1, 2, 3, and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not provide a service related to metal interior work to ○○○○, and the instant tax invoice was issued in the Plaintiff’s own name on the sole basis of the fact that Kim○, an individual construction was conducted after the termination of the partnership relationship with the Plaintiff, and that the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff provided metal construction services to ○○, Inc., was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

C. Determination

1) Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a person who supplies goods or services independently on a business basis regardless of a museum for profit, i.e., an entrepreneur liable to pay value-added tax. The determination of a taxpayer under the principle of substantial taxation (Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes) is based on legal substance, not external appearance, and thus, whether a person is a person liable to pay value-added tax should be corrected depending on whether the effect of the supply of goods or

2) According to Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9, and witness testimony, the plaintiff and Kim Jong-soo entered into a Dong business agreement around May 2004, the plaintiff agreed to entrust material procurement, factory management and fund management, Kim Jong-soo's agreement to divide the amount of profit, and Kim Jong-soo's intent to terminate the Dong business relationship on Nov. 1, 2004 on the ground that the plaintiff did not distribute profit. However, the plaintiff agreed to issue the tax invoice under the plaintiff's name until Kim Jong-soo's business was registered with the plaintiff's business operator, and the plaintiff and Kim Jong-soo purchased the above 200 Gao's 20 Gao's Gao's 29 Gao's Gao's Gao's Gao's Gao's Gao's Gao's Gao's Gao's Gao's 206 Gao's Ga.

Therefore, the instant disposition is just because it is issued to the Plaintiff, who is a joint business proprietor, jointly and severally liable for the payment of value-added tax related to the joint business (Article 25(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes). Therefore,

3. Conclusion

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