early 2013 Middle 2258 ( November 26, 2013)

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact of the supplier.

Even if there is a transaction of supplying goods, etc., the supplier constitutes a different tax invoice from the issuer of the tax invoice.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2014Guhap954 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

Head of the tax office

October 31, 2014

November 28, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the corporate tax belonging to the Plaintiff in December 7, 2012 and the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2007, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on December 7, 2012, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 20, 199, the Plaintiff, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic resin, etc. from December 20, 2007, received a tax invoice of KRW 407,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) in total from BB development (hereinafter referred to as “B development”) in relation to the Plaintiff’s existing factory extension and repair construction (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction”) during the 2nd VAT taxable period, and filed a return of the value-added tax payable including the input tax amount subject to deduction in deductible expenses, and filed a return of corporate tax by including the value of supply in deductible expenses.

B. The Defendant actually performed the instant construction work, DDR Co., Ltd. (EE on December 4, 2007)

In this case, it is judged that the trade name was changed in the section; hereinafter referred to as "DD"); and

In fact that a tax invoice is deemed to be a false tax invoice and denies the input tax deduction;

On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff imposed the value-added tax for the second term of 2007 and the additional corporate tax for the year 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “each disposition of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but on March 2013

11. The dismissal was made on 26.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The corporation of this case is not DD but BB development. Accordingly, the tax invoice of this case

Since the content of the actual transaction was reflected as it is, each of the dispositions of this case made on different premise is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

① Around October 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) through the instant construction, made the steel structure of each of the first floors above ground.

275m2 and cement block building 155m2 were removed and expanded.

② The Plaintiff and DDD are the same location, and Kim ○, the real manager of DDD, was the external third village of the Plaintiff’s representative director, and Lee ○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, requested Kim ○○ to execute the instant construction.

③ The purchase amount of the raw materials of BB development related to the instant construction project as of the second tax invoice in 2007 is not verified, while DD during the same period is related to construction, YY Steel, etc.

There are a number of tax invoices (total value of 113,609,000) received from enterprises.

④ With respect to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff paid KRW 321,932,811 to DDR, and paid KRW 69,500,000 to DDR’s trading company and HH, a purchaser company, etc.

BB Development KRW 40,350,000, and Park ○-○ account, the spouse of the Director at the Field of BB Development,

25,000,000 won were paid respectively to the Plaintiff. DDR paid KRW 250,000,000 among the above amounts received from the Plaintiff.

⑤ The BB Development was established on September 1, 2003 and added a construction business to a sub-business type on December 4, 2007. At present, its executives and employees are unclear, and their employees were closed ex officio on June 30, 2008.

6. The Kim○-○, at the time of BB development site, made the following statements concerning the instant construction project in the course of the tax investigation (at present, the location is unknown).

○ at the time of October 2007, BB development provided goods and services in relation to the instant construction to DD subcontractors (at the time of entering into a subcontract agreement, but the location of the present contract is unknown) and received from DD the total of KRW 5,500,000 in face value of bills from DD to the cost of construction, and did not know that at the time the owner of the building was the Plaintiff.

On December 2, 2007, ○○, an introduction of Kim○-○, made out a contract form with the Plaintiff and the amount was at least KRW 400 million, and thereafter prepared three tax invoices and delivered them to the Plaintiff. While the contract was made at the beginning of October, 200, it was actually made up on the beginning of December, 12. In this case, the Plaintiff became aware that the building owner was the Plaintiff.

Since the end of December 2007, it was difficult to carry out the construction due to the failure of DD to pay for the portion of tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff, and 40 million won was paid to BB development account by requesting the Plaintiff to pay value-added tax on the portion of tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 3 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007) which denies the deduction of an input tax amount for a tax invoice received in the course of transaction refers to a case where the necessary entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person who actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, and the price and time of the goods, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Thus, even if a transaction of supplying goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier constitutes a different tax invoice from that of the person who issued the tax invoice.

On the other hand, in a case where a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer for value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction is falsely prepared without a real transaction, or is proved to be different from the fact by the tax authority that it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice is disputed. In a case where a transaction with a supplier stated in the tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is proved to be reasonable, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that the transaction with the supplier stated in the tax invoice was actually conducted with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20

(2) The following facts are revealed as to the flow of funds, the purchase data, the related person’s statement, etc.

In other words, if BB development is the other party to the contract of the construction of this case, the plaintiff is hard to do so.

There is no reason to pay most of the construction cost to DD (the plaintiff's request to Da○).

In light of the Plaintiff’s business experience, the scale of the instant construction, and the importance of account transactions between corporations, etc., although it is argued that Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.

4. Conclusion

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