Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap38943 ( October 30, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2009No3114 (Law No. 13, 2010)

Since a false tax invoice was received from data as an internal constructor, the disposition of imposition is legitimate.

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance) Since it is recognized that a business operator engaged in internal construction business, etc. received a false tax invoice from a person accused on data without real transactions, a disposition based on processing transaction is lawful.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu27607 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA, Inc.

Head of Geumcheon Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap38943 decided June 30, 2011

March 28, 2012

May 2, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 200 won for the second term of 2006 and corporate tax of 2006 and the disposition of notification of change in income amount of 00 won for the business year of 2006 shall be revoked.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasons for this Court regarding this case are as follows, with the exception of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance. Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the corresponding part shall be cited.

Parts of cutting.

○○ 5th day below, ‘the first half of the 5th day' is advanced as follows:

In the former and the first instance court, YB awarded a subcontract for part of the construction works to the UCC, which had been ordered by the director of the non-party company to the non-party company. However, the testimony that the metal construction works were mainly subcontracted is stated in the detailed statement of execution and the detailed statement of execution (Evidence A to 2 and 5) report that the construction works were sub-contractors, among the construction works for complex OO buildings, the construction of lighting equipment, reinforcement glasss, among the construction works for complex building, the construction of internal stairs structural frame, the construction of OOOOOO's new construction of a new terminal, and the construction of sbrids among the construction works for the non-party company. The above construction works are indicated as sub-subcontracts to the non-party company, which are many non-party companies and non-party companies that have no relation with the public order construction works, and the construction works stated in the detailed statement of execution and the detailed statement of execution report, and the construction works stated in the OOOOO's new construction report are different from each other sector.

○ From the 6th day below to the 7th day above the 7th day above the 7th day is as follows:

(2) As seen earlier, the imposition of corporate tax and the notice of change in the amount of income accrued in the year 2006 deeming that the non-party company or UCC had subcontracted the construction cost of KRW 000,000 is false. The imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2007, the Plaintiff claimed to the non-party company or UCC, not the construction cost, should be deemed as the construction cost but should be deemed as the processing cost, is legitimate. As long as the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid to the non-party company or UCC, is not recognized as the construction cost and is not included in the loss, the notification of change in the amount of income accrued in the

2. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.