early 201luminous3073 ( November 22, 2011)

The plaintiff was lent only in the name of the corporation in this case.

The construction of this case was actually conducted by the subcontractor, but it was merely issued a tax invoice stating the Plaintiff as the recipient of the payment after the completion of construction, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff lent only the name of the construction of this case to the subcontractor.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap833 and revocation of disposition to impose value-added tax and corporate tax

AA General Construction Corporation

Head of the Jeonju Tax Office

August 28, 2012

September 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 on May 16, 201 and KRW 000 on May 17, 201 against the Plaintiff, respectively, of KRW 200 on May 16, 201, and of KRW 000 on May 17, 201 against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2009. 11. 27. 이BB으로부터 전주시 완산구 ㅇㅇㅇ가 000 지상 상가건물 신축공사(이하 '이 사건 공사'라고 한다)를 000원에 도급받고， 이 사건 공사와 관련하여 아래 표 기재 각 세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라고 한다)를 수취하여 2009 2기 사업연도와 2010년 1기 사엽연도에 관한 법인세 및 부가가치세 신고 ・ 납부를 하였다.

B. The Defendant: (a) deducted each of the tax invoices listed in the instant tax invoices from the second input tax invoice for the business year 2009; and (b) issued 37 tax invoices listed in the table 1 and 2 from the first input tax invoice for the business year 2010; and (c) imposed additional tax returns for the business year 2009 and 000 of value-added tax for the first year 1, 2010 on each of the tax invoices for the following reasons: (a) notified the Plaintiff at around 209; and (b) notified the Plaintiff at around 1, 200, value-added tax for the second year 200, and value-added tax for the first year 200 on May 17, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request with the Tax Tribunal on August 12, 201, but the said request was dismissed on October 22, 201.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The actual contractor of the instant construction is a direct payment agreement in which the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the subcontractor directly pay the construction cost to the subcontractor, and accordingly, the BB paid the construction cost to the subcontractor. As such, each of the instant dispositions in preference to the different premise is unlawful even though each of the instant tax invoices was not prepared differently from the fact.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the E-B on the condition that the OOOOOOOO entered into a contract with the E-B for the construction of a commercial building on the ground of 000 won (excluding value-added tax) and on November 30, 2010 after the completion date of the completion plan. The foregoing contract does not stipulate at all the contract bond, prepaid, and partial payment.

2) This GG is an ex post facto difference with Kim HH, the representative director of the Plaintiff, due to the fB’s pro quo. The Plaintiff’s corporate register states that this GG was appointed as an internal director of the non-party company on July 28, 2010, but was dismissed on July 25, 201.

3) The instant construction project was completed on November 2, 2010 and completed a completion inspection on the building on November 22, 2010, and during the said construction period, the money deposited by the Plaintiff and its representative director in the account (Account Number: 000, Jeonbuk Bank) of thisG and the money deposited by LeeB and Lee GG in the account of the Plaintiff (Account Number: 000, Jeonbuk Bank) are as follows.

4) The Plaintiff drafted a direct payment agreement with the subcontractor of the instant construction project, and with respect to the payment of the construction price directly to the subcontractor, the Plaintiff signed a direct payment agreement with each other, and both of the above direct payment agreements provide a brief statement of the agreement on the direct payment of the construction price in the same form, and the content of the construction contract, including the construction price, and the contract period, does not appear at all. The BB and the G paid the construction price to the individual subcontractor by using their personal passbook from the time of the conclusion of each direct payment agreement.

5) On April 4, 2011, Kim H had been investigated by the Jeonju Tax Office on the Plaintiff’s input tax data and stated the following as follows. In other words, Kim HH received the proposal from LeeG to set up a commercial building, and paid a little amount of construction to thisG, but actually waived the instant construction, and thisG had not paid advance payment and the progress payment for the basic construction, and thisG had employed Song PP directly as the site manager and had been constructed through the subcontractor. ThisG was requesting the subcontractor to issue a tax invoice by requesting that the subcontractor would be supplied with the Plaintiff, and it was issued the said tax invoice by receiving the said tax invoice from thisGG, and it was reported as an input tax amount and filed a value-added tax return.

6) On March 201, 201, the JJ, which supplied ready-mixed to the instant construction, issued a sales tax invoice of KRW 000 in which the Plaintiff entered as the Plaintiff, and submitted a written confirmation of the fact of transaction that the payment was directly received from the B and the G.

7) On April 201, a public official in charge of Jeonju tax affairs filed a complaint with the Plaintiff and Kim HH on charges of issuing processed tax invoices with the police. Kim HH conducted the instant construction in the police investigation process, this GG was dispatched to the construction site of this case from November 2009, and this BB was unable to pay the construction cost to the subcontractor due to the financial difficulties, and this GG was drafted under a third party agreement to pay the construction cost directly to the subcontractor due to the nature of the guarantor, and this corporation reversed the statement at the tax office of the previous Jeju District Public Prosecutor's office on August 5, 2011, and accordingly, it rendered a decision that there was no suspicion of a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the Plaintiff and Kim H in the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act against the Plaintiff and Kim H.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence 7 to 9 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

After all, the issue of this case is that the plaintiff actually performed the construction of this case, and it is true that each of the tax invoices of this case is consistent with the facts, and considering the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in the evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the construction of this case was performed by the subcontractor who actually received instructions from thisG, and that the above company was issued a tax invoice re-issued to the plaintiff while receiving the payment after the completion of construction. Therefore, each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes cases where the details of the entries are different from the facts. Therefore, the defendant's each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate.

① The date of preparation of each direct payment agreement between this BB and the subcontractor (No. 8-1 through 13 of the evidence A) is between November 2009 and June 2010, and it is doubtful whether each of the above direct payments agreements was made by Kim HH prior to August 2010, which was alleged that Kim HH directly promoted construction works in the tax office and the police investigation process, and among them, the date of preparation of each direct payment agreement between LL theory and MM made between the Plaintiff on November 20, 2009 and November 25, 2009, respectively.

② The construction price for the subcontractor was most transferred from the Plaintiff’s personal passbook or paid in cash, and the details on which the Plaintiff paid the construction price directly to the subcontractor are not verified. In addition, while the Plaintiff asserts that the amount transferred from the account of this B to the Plaintiff’s account is the construction price in this case, it is difficult to recognize that the said amount was given as the construction price for the non-party company because the amount (00 won) transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s account for the same period is much much more than the amount (00 won) transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to

③ At the request of thisG, the managing director of the II concrete industry stated that the person who provided and supplied services to thisG was issued a tax invoice indicating that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff.

④ From August 2010, 2010, Kim H asserted that this GG employed the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s internal director and carried out the instant construction, and that on September 14, 2010, it was alleged that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 to the Defendant for the payment of the wage and salary income in 2010. However, it is difficult to believe that the said money was actually paid to the Defendant for the wage of thisG, etc. on the ground that there was no wage and salary income data belonging to the year 2010 for thisG, and there was no wage and salary income data belonging to thisG in 2010.

⑤ The Plaintiff, as a construction company specialized in civil engineering works, accounts for most of the government-funded construction works prior to 2009, and the annual income amount was less than one billion won.

6.B deducted the supply value stated in the tax invoice supplied by the Plaintiff from the input tax amount, and applied for the refund of value-added tax for the first period of 2010, but the application was rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff was not the actual contractor after the Defendant’s on-site investigation, and BB paid the value-added tax corrected and notified without raising any objection thereto.

4. Conclusion

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