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

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The assertion that the tax invoice is not false

The Plaintiff, as indicated in the instant tax invoice, was actually supplied with oil from the transaction partner of the instant case and was normally paid the price, and thus, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice.

2) The assertion that the trader is a trader of good faith and negligence

Even if the tax invoice of this case is different from the facts, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the oil was supplied by the other company, not the business partner of this case, and the transaction commenced through the introduction of the business partner of this case, and the oil was remitted to the deposit account of the above business partner after receiving the oil. Thus, the Plaintiff is a bona fide and without fault on the ground that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9617 of Apr. 1, 2009) provides that the deduction of an input tax amount is denied for a tax invoice received in the course of a transaction refers to a case where the requisite contents of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the entity that actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, or the price, time, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Thus, even if a transaction of supplying the goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier falls under a different tax invoice from the name of the issuer." Further, even if a taxpayer of value-added tax proves that a tax invoice submitted as the basis for input tax deduction was falsely prepared without a real transaction, or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact, so that it is reasonable to prove that it is a supplier’s actual purchase or the authenticity of the tax invoice, and that it is difficult for the supplier to present the tax invoice to the extent of 200.

B) Even if the Plaintiff was actually supplied oil as specified in the instant tax invoice, if the customer who supplied oil to the Plaintiff is not a supplier under the tax invoice but a different supplier, the instant tax invoice is different from the fact. Therefore, whether the customer who supplied oil to the Plaintiff is consistent with the supplier under the tax invoice is examined.

6. On December 8, 2008, the business entity of this case opened its own business or closed its own business on September 30, 2009. The business entity of this case was found to have never received the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff for the second and 10 years since it was difficult for the Plaintiff to receive the instant tax invoice from the Party 2 to deliver the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff. However, in light of the fact that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to do so, the Plaintiff and its representative director to actually file an accusation against the Plaintiff as to the sale of the instant goods and services, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to 20 years since the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the Party 1, 10, 3, 4, and 5, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to directly submit the instant tax invoice to the Party 2 to the Plaintiff. However, in light of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation, it was found that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to do so for the Party 2 to verify the instant sales of the instant goods and services.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the Plaintiff’s tax invoice in the name of the customer of this case, which was received by the Plaintiff, constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice in the name of the tax invoice, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the absence of such knowledge (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

B) We examine whether the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier as indicated in the instant tax invoice and the Plaintiff’s failure to know.

In light of the above, the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not negligent due to the plaintiff's failure to know the above facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

오히려 앞서 든 증거들과 갑 제2호증의 기재(가지번호 포함)에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 유류업계의 공급 구조가 복잡 하고 면세유 등을 이용한 무자료 거래가 빈번하다는 사실이 사회문제화 되어 있으므로, 통상적인 주유소 운영자라면 유류공급업체가 실제 공급자인지 여부에 대하여 특히 주의를 기울일 필요가 있고, 더욱이 원고는 NN주유소를 운영하기 전 유류거래업체인 주식회사 PP에너지에서 2년간 근무하였으므로 그동안의 경험을 통해 유류 공급의 정상적인 구조와 유통경로, 업계의 일반적 거래 형태나 방식 및 유류업계에 널리 퍼진 자료상 거래의 실태와 위험성에 관하여 잘 알고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 정유사가 유류를 공급할 때 발행 ・ 교부하는 출하전표는 정상적인 유통경로를 거쳐 유류가 거래된 것이라는 점을 확인시켜 주는 중요한 자료이고 공급된 유류가 원고의 주문내역과 일치하는지 확인하기 위해서는 출하전표에 온도, 비중/그룹, 중량 등이 기재되어 있어 야 할 것으로 보임에도 원고가 이 사건 거래처로부터 교부받은 출하전표에는 이 부분에 대하여 전혀 기재되어 있지 않아 이러한 출하전표로는 해당 유류가 정상제품인지 여부를 확인하기 곤란한 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 또한 이 사건 거래처로부터 교부받은 출하전표와 판매 및 인수확인서에는 출하일자가 모두 다름에도 원고가 받은 위 각 판매 및 인수확인서와 출하전표에는 전표번호가 모두 OOOOOO로 동일하게 기재되어 있는 점, ④ 원고는 다른 유류거래업체로부터 공급받은 유류보다 10원 내지 20원 가량 저렴하게 유류를 공급받았고, 다른 유류업체와의 거래에서는 대금지급 후 유류를 공급받았는데 반하여 이 사건 거래처와의 거래에 있어서는 유류공급 후 2~3일간 대금결제에 대한 여신을 제공받은 점, ⑤ 원고는 최초 거래시 손QQ로부터 RR송유관공사 OO저유소에서 유류가 배달될 것이라는 이야기를 들었고, 실제로 OO저유소를 방문하여 유류 출하사실을 확인하기도 하였다는 것이나, 이는 이 사건 거래처가 원고에게 교부한 출하전표에 기재된 출하지와도 일치하지 아니한 점, ⑥ 원고 스스로 상대방이 적법한 자격을 갖추고 실제로 매매계약에 따른 유류를 공급할 수 있는 인적・물적 설비를 갖추었는지 확인해야 할 의무가 있으나 원고는 고액의 유류거래를 하면서도 이 사건 거래처의 사업자등록증과 석유판매업등록증만 확인하였다는 것일 뿐 거래기간 중 그 유류 저장시설이나 사무실 등을 제대로 확인하지 않은 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ 이 사건 거래처가 아닌 윤MM에게 고용된 손QQ는 원고에게 이 사건 거래처의 차장인 것처럼 명함을 교부하고 원고로부터 명함을 받아 이를 윤MM에게 교부하였고, 윤MM은 손QQ의 핸드폰 번호를 발신번호로 기재하여 문자메시지로 원고에게 단가를 보내주면 원고가 발송된 유류가격을 문자로 확인한 후 손QQ에게 전화를 걸어 유류를 주문하는 방식으로 유류거래를 하였다는 것인바, 원고가 운영하던 NN주유소가 속칭 무폴주유소 로서 유류를 취급하는 어떤 업체와도 거래할 수 있다 하더라도 이는 유류공급업체가 실제 공급자인지 여부에 대하여 주의의무를 소홀히 한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받을 당시에 이 사건 거래처가 자료상으로서 실제로 유류를 공급하는 자가 아니라는 사실을 알았거나, 설사 이를 알지 못하였다 고 하더라도 거기에는 원고의 과실이 있다고 봄이 상당하다. 이와 반대의 견지에 선 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the facts, and it cannot be deemed that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant disposition that the Defendant denied the input tax deduction pursuant to the instant tax invoice is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.