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

This Court's explanation is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant tax invoice was unlawful on the ground that (1) the Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil by each of the instant transaction parties, and that the instant tax invoice did not constitute a false tax invoice, and (2) even if the actual supplier of domestic oil was not a transaction party of the instant case, the Plaintiff did not know it and did not know it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

(A) Relevant legal principles

In the event that a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer for value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared without a real transaction, or that the tax invoice is prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact, and the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice is disputed. In the event that a transaction with a supplier stated in the tax invoice alleged by the taxpayer is proved to a considerable extent that it is false, it is necessary to prove that a taxpayer is easily liable for tax payment to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that the supplier actually traded with the supplier stated in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20

In addition, a person who is obliged to issue a tax invoice to an entrepreneur who is supplied with goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act shall be deemed not to form a nominal legal relationship with the entrepreneur who is supplied with the goods or services, but to have actually performed the transaction of supplying the goods or services to the entrepreneur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

(B) Part of the tax invoice issued by BB on August 2008

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 48 through 50 of the gas station in this case, it is recognized that the daily total sales volume of the gas station in this case was O-liter of August 1, 2008, and the full-time meter of August 31, 2008 was O-liter of the gas station. The plaintiff entered O-liter of light oil from CCC in the trading situation department in August 2008, and O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of O-liter of 2008. According to daily finished sales data, if the supplier entered O-liter as stated in the monthly trading situation department and sold O-liter of 208, it is difficult to see that there is a difference between the plaintiff and the last day of 2008 O-liter of 200.

(C) The remainder of the tax invoice

살피건대, 갑 제1, 6, 7호증, 을 제2, 5, 6, 7호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 DD은행, EE은행, FF은행에 대한 사실조회 결과 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 중부지방국세청 등은 이 사건 각 거래처에 대한 세무조사를 실시한 결과, 위 각 거래처가 실제 정유사로부터 유류를 공급받은 사실이 없는데도 허위의 출하전표를 발행한 것으로 판단하고 위 각 거래처를 자료상 혐의로 고발하였던 점, ② 주식회사 GGG의 대표이사 조HH과 주식회사 II에너지의 대표이사 권JJ은 2011. 3. 31. 또는 2010. 12. 30. 각 기소중지(참고인 중지)처분을 받았고, 주식회사 KK에너지의 대표이사 유LL은 다수의 주유소에 유류를 공급한 적이 없음에도 마치 유류를 공급한 것처럼 허위의 매출처별 세금계산서 합계표를 작성하여 세무서에 제출 하였다는 조세범처벌법위반죄로 징역형을 선고[대전지방법원 천안지원 2008고합226(분리), 2009고합6(병합), 2009고합 9(병합), 2009고합55(병합), 2009고합99(병합)]받아 그 판결이 확정되었으며, 주식회사 MM에너지의 대표이사 동NN은 다수의 주유소에 유류를 공급한 적이 없음에도 마치 유류를 공급한 것처럼 허위의 매출처별 세금계산서 합계표를 작성하여 세무서에 제출하였다는 조세범처벌법위반죄로 징역형을 선고(서울 북부지방법원 2010고단304호)받아 그 판결이 확정되었는데, 위 확정판결에서 주식회사 MM에너지가 재화나 용역을 공급한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 2009년 1기에 이 사건 주유소에게 OOOO원의 매출세금계산서를 발급한 사실이 인정된 점, ③ 주식회사 MM에너지의 2009년 1기, 주식회사 GGG의 2009. 1기 및 2기, 주식회사 II에너지의 2009년 2기 각 매출총액은 모두 OOOO원으로 100% 자료상에 해당하므로 100% 자료상인 위 거래처들이 원고에게 실제로 유류를 공급하였다고 보기 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 위 각 거래처들의 실제 매입금액은 각 OOOO원, OOOO원, OOOO원인데 원고가 위 각 거래처들로부터 경유를 매입한 금액은 각 OOOO원, OOOO원, OOOO원인바, 위 각 거래처들의 매입금액 전액이유류매입비용에 해당하고 이렇게 매입한 유류 전량을 원고에게 공급하였다고 가정하더라도 그 금액이 원고의 경유 매입비용에 현저히 부족한 점, ④ 주식회사 KK에너지는 정유소로부터 유류를 공급받아 소매점에게 판매하는 유통업자이므로 주식회사 KK에너지가 실제로 원고에게 경유를 공급하였다면 매출에 대응한 유류매입사실이 인정되어야 할 것인데, 주식회사 KK에너지의 2007년 2기 매입금액은 OOOO원에 불과한 반면 주식회사 KK에너지가 위 기간 동안 원고에게 작성해준 세금계산서상 매출금액은 OOOO원에 달하므로 주식회사 KK에너지가 제3자로부터 경유를 실제로 공급받아 원고에게 공급하였다고 보기도 어려운 점, ⑤ 주식회사 KK에너지 발행 세금계산서와 관련한 정유사들의 출하전표에 그 거래처나 도착지가 주식회사 KK에너지나 이 사건 주유소인 경우는 없었고, 나아가 그 거래처나 도착지 업체 중 원고에게 유류를 판매한 업체도 찾을 수 없는 점, ⑥ 이 사건 각 거래처의 주 매입처인 주식회사 PP에너지, 주식회사 QQQ, 주식회사 RR에너지, 주식회사 SS에너지, 주식회사 TTT 등 역시 자료상으로 고발된 업체들로서 다수의 차명계좌를 개설하여 매출처로부터 거래대금이 입금되면 즉시 현금으로 인출하거나 가공매입처에 송금한 후 다시 여러 차명계좌로 송금하여 자금의 추적을 어렵게 하는 등 가공거래를 해왔던 점, ⑦ 이 사건 각 거래처는 유류대리 점으로서 필요한 유류저장탱크, 수송장비 등을 전혀 갖추고 있지 않거나 저장탱크 등을 임차한 경우에도 이를 이용하여 실제로 유류를 저장 ・ 운송한 사실은 없었던 점, ⑧ 이 사건 세금계산서의 유류와 관련한 정유사들의 유류출하내역에 그 거래처나 도착지가 이 사건 주유소나 이 사건 각 거래처인 경우는 없었고, 나아가 그 거래처나 도착지 업체 중 원고에게 유류를 판매한 업체도 찾을 수 없는 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 유류의 실제 공급자는 이 사건 각 거래처가 아닌 제3자로 볼 수밖에 없다.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

(A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are unaware of the fact that the person who received the other tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were nominal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277

(B) In full view of the respective statements in Gap, Gap, 8, 9, 23, 29, 29, 32, and 29 through 32, and the purport of the witness U’s testimony and the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff prepared a document stating that the above customer’s business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, corporate account book, and business operator’s account at the time of the transaction with each of the respective business parties of this case is true that the two V, who had worked for the plaintiff under the name of the above business parties, is true that the transaction with the plaintiff related to the tax invoice of this case. However, the above facts alone did not lead to the failure of the plaintiff

Rather, in light of the above facts acknowledged as above, Gap's 8, 9, 31, 32, 44, and 45's transaction partners, and the fact that the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and non-material transactions using free oil are frequently social issues, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier, and the plaintiff has operated petroleum and retail business for 7 or 9 years from 200 years since its supply of oil as above. Thus, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff was not aware of the normal structure of the oil supply industry and the distribution method of the oil industry and the distribution industry, and that the plaintiff could not be seen as being widely known to the plaintiff's normal supply of the oil market because it could not be easily known that the plaintiff's usual supply of the oil market of this case was no more than the actual supply of the oil market of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17565, Mar. 1, 200>

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