2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

"A. On November 27, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) was a corporation established for the purpose of gas station, light, and retail business at the time of OOO-dong 76-145, with the name of "BB gas station BB station"; and (b) was changed as at June 15, 201; (b) the Plaintiff received six copies of purchase tax invoices of the supply value of the OOOO in total, including four purchase tax invoices and two purchase tax invoices of the OOOO items, and paid the input tax amount by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. On November 2010, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) determined that the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff is a material that issued the tax invoice without a real transaction; and (b) notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming that the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff was a material non-real transaction tax invoice.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant, upon conducting a tax investigation related to the transaction order with the Plaintiff, deemed the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact and deducted the input tax amount. On January 14, 201, on 2009, the Defendant revised and notified each of the following dispositions to the Plaintiff: (a) the value-added tax OO personnel for the second term of 2009, the value-added tax OOO personnel for the first term of 2010, and the corporate tax OO personnel for the business year 2009 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each disposition”).

E. On March 24, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on May 3, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 9 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

From June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2010, DD entrusted with the operation of BB gas station from the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party with the duty of due care as a good manager, and the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party with the belief that the CC energy was the actual supplier, and that the FF, the representative director of CC energy, was submitted the CC Energy's business registration certificate, the petroleum sales registration certificate, the corporation identification certificate, the registration certificate, and the value-added tax base certificate, and the energy was a normal petroleum retailer, and that the CC purchased oil fromCC energy, verified the shipment mark, verified the vehicle number, the transporter, etc., and paid the price to the account ofCC energy. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions taken on a different premise is unlawful.

2) The defendant's assertion

CC Energy claimed that the Plaintiff purchased oil, GG Co., Ltd., its upper-tier companies, HH, Co., Ltd., HH, and Co., Ltd., JJ, and KK Co., Ltd., KR has not purchased oil from four similar domestic markets, and CC Energy transferred all the money transferred from the Plaintiff to the account of GGG, a superior company within a short time, to the account of the GGG, which is the Plaintiff, and the energy is merely a tool where the non-data sales organization laps money. DD has worked for 10 years from LL, as it owns other gas stations than BB oil stations, and it can be known of what contents are entered in the oil distribution process or the shipment list, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party. Accordingly, each of the instant dispositions is legitimate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On May 10, 2007, DD operated BB stations during the above period, according to the consignment operation contract concluded between MF and OOO-dong 76-145, which is the Plaintiff’s controlling shareholder, with a period of three years from June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2010.

2) On September 2009, DDD received FF, which was an employee of the NP station operated by it, from the contact with the PPP and was introduced by the FF, who was an employee of the NP energy, and received the E, who was the representative director of theCC energy, from the contact with the CC’s business registration certificate (Evidence 2-1), the petroleum sales registration certificate (Evidence 2-2), the petroleum sales registration certificate (Evidence 2-4), the value-added tax tax base certificate (Evidence 2-6), and the corporate certificate of seal imprint (Evidence 2-7), etc., and received oil from the CC energy from September 11, 2009 to February 2, 2010.

3) DDD은 CC에너지로부터 유류를 공급받으면 CC에너지의 계좌(QQ 계좌번호 : 242-01-051746，RR은행 계좌번호: 140-008-563270)로 거래 당일 또는 약 2~3일 후에 입금하거나 며칠에 걸쳐 나누어 입금하는 방법으로 유류대금을 지급하였는데，2009. 9. 11.부터 2009. 12. 31.까지의 기간 동안 많게는 OOOO원，적게는 OOOO원의 미지급 대금이 존재하기도 하였다.

4) Meanwhile, from around 1989 to around 1999, DNA was merged with SSS Co., Ltd., an affiliate company of LL (TT sales corporation on September 30, 1997, and TPP sales corporation was merged with UUU Co., Ltd. on July 31, 2000. Furthermore, DD operated V stations at OO from October 28, 2004 to June 30, 2005, and operated Njuju stations at OO from December 8, 2008 to August 7, 2009.

5) According to the petroleum retail registration certificate forCC energy, andCC energy was registered for petroleum retail business on August 21, 2007 at the location of the place of business on OO at OO on August 21, 2007 with 875-5 OO11th 303, and OO-dong 281 at OO-gu at OOO, and it has six oil storage equipment (120km each), and three vehicles for transport (28,303,903 (28cc), 83,855 (20cc) and 6214 (20cc). However,CC energy did not actually own oil storage facilities or transportation vehicles.

6)CC energy shall indicate the shipment slips issued by staticly similar to the plaintiff to GGG, deliver them to the gas stations including the plaintiff, and in the gas stations including the plaintiff, the shipping slips issued by it to the gas stations including the plaintiff (Evidence A 4). The shipping slips include the date of shipment, the date of issuance, the vehicle, the vehicle, the shipping place, the product name, the shipping place, the mark, the shipping volume, the shipping volume, the shipping volume, the number of persons, and the carriers, and the temperature, load and density.

The forms and entries of the above shipping slips are similar to the shipping slips (Evidence 17-1, A-30) of YY YY YY issuance, which the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the order of trade with the Plaintiff as normal trade (the shipment slips of YY issuance include the date of shipment, the shipment classification, the transport equipment number, the trade name, the shipping volume, the product name, the number, the unit of the approval, the quantities of the shipping, the approved persons, the shippers and the shippers, and the places where the temperature are recorded). In addition, the shipment slips (Evidence 17-3, A-28) of WW She issuance (Evidence 17-3, and A-28) of WW Y issuance, which the Defendant judged as normal trade with the Plaintiff as a result of the above investigation by the Plaintiff, and the shipment slips (Evidence 29) of WW Y issuance at the market (Evidence 29) of the Co., Ltd., there is no temperature and density.

7) Since May 23, 2012, DNA operates an oil station from sunrise to sunrise in OO-Gu OO 398 routes. However, each shipment ticket (Evidence No. 32 and 33) delivered by DDD when it purchases oil from a stock company, and bbbb stock company (Evidence No. 32 and 33) is the shipment ticket that it receives from the stock company, and bbb stock company purchases each oil from TT stock company, and the place of destination or delivery is written as ZZ and bbb stock company, and alb stock station operated by DD is not entirely shown in the above shipment schedule.

In addition, DD has purchased oil purchased by the company from ccc stock companies from the Tyang Industries Co., Ltd., and at this time, the shipment slips (Evidence A 34) delivered are written as ddd', not 'd' operated by DD, at the place of destination.

In addition, the shipping slips (Evidence No. 35) delivered by DD when it purchases oil from e is written by the issuer asfff corporation, the consignor gg and the Customer hh, and the e or sunrise oil station is not entirely written by e or sunrise.

8) The date of shipment on the shipment slip issued by theCC Energy to the Plaintiff, the driver, and the oil transport vehicle were examined, and the orderer was another company that has no connection withCC energy or its upper level company, and the final destination was confirmed to be a gas station other than BB gas station.

9) According to the computerized data of the National Tax Service, the fuel purchasing places ofCC energy are GGG Co., Ltd., and the fuel purchasing places of the Company GG are Co., Ltd. III, Co., Ltd. HH and C, and HH purchasing places of the Co., Ltd. III and the JJ of the Co., Ltd. are confirmed to be KK, while most of them are found to have issued false tax invoices without real transactions as a result of the tax investigation.

10) The Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff on the basis of the details of the investigation conducted by the director of the Central Tax Office of China based on the following facts: (a) determined that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice; and (b) accused the Plaintiff and DD for the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. However, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a decision that there was no suspicion on the ground that the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice for the reason that it could not be readily concluded that the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice without a real transaction in light of the details of transactions submitted by DD on February 25, 2011, in light of the EE and oil carriers, the representative director of theCC energy, and the statements made by the oil carriers, etc., and that the discrepancy between the shipment slips and the shipping slips ofCC energy was sufficient to newly prepare due to the involvement of wholesale companies such asCC energy.

[Grounds for Recognition] The overall purport of the arguments and arguments between the non-speed facts, Gap 2 through 9, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 28, 29, 32 through 35, and Eul 1, 2, 3, and 7 through 11.

D. Determination

1) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not aware of the fact that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier in the name of the tax invoice, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the person who received the tax shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier in the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact of the above fact of misrepresentation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

2) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 20, and the defendant evidence No. 20 are the parties in good faith, and that the plaintiff is the parties in good faith who believe thatCC energy is the actual supplier, and that it is not negligent in believing it as above. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's above assertion is with merit.

① When a transport vehicle registered in the oil refinery starts with oil at the oil reservoir, the Defendant, and the carrier show the date and time of shipment, the kind of oil, the place of final arrival, the vehicle number, and the transport engineer, etc. (the oil is sensitive to the temperature, such as an increase or decrease in the load according to temperature, etc.) while the carrier holds two copies of the pre-delivery, one of them is delivered to the oil station, and the oil station side confirms whether the oil transported to him through the pre-shipment mark is normal oil, and the Plaintiff returns the pre-shipment ticket issued by the oil station toCC, and stores the pre-shipment ticket issued by theCC to the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a legal obligation to keep oil after receiving the shipment slips issued by static oil refining in the transaction of oil (the president of the Korea Petroleum Association replys that, in the event that a petroleum retailer purchases petroleum products from a petroleum retailer, whether it is the obligation to receive the shipment slips issued by static oil stations and petroleum retailers, and that it is not known that it is the transaction conditions of Pool oil stations and petroleum retailers.)

In addition, there is no legal provision on the matters to be entered in the shipment slip form or shipment slip, and there is no difference between the temperature and density in the case of the shipment slip of the YY Issuance, which the defendant judged as a normal trade as a result of the investigation conducted by the defendant related to the trade order with the plaintiff, and WWW, and the shipping slip of the YY Issuance does not include the temperature and the density.

(2) The Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter referred to as the "petroleum Business Act") was amended by Act No. 9370 on January 30, 2009 to allow only the vertical distribution structure of oil stations from oil refineries to a general agency as a general agency (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21462 of Apr. 30, 2009) and began to allow so-called horizontal transactions between general agencies or between gas stations (see subparagraphs 1, 3, and 4 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Petroleum Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21462 of Apr. 30, 200).

As a result, the shipping slips issued by the oil refining agency are similar to the oil refining agency before horizontal trade is permitted, and the agency has a function to indicate and confirm the distribution route of the oil station, which is the place of destination, but after horizontal trade is permitted, only the fact that the oil is the oil produced in the oil refining and legally sold, the kind, quantity, etc. of the oil, and the function to indicate and confirm the distribution route to the destination is lost almost, and even if the destination does not coincide with the pre-issuance schedule of the oil refining, there is no particular problem in oil trade, and if the oil station purchases the oil from the general agency, it is increased in the case of keeping the shipment slips issued by the general agency after checking the oil refining, kind, quantity, vehicle number, time, etc. from the shipping pre-issuance table of the oil refining issued by the transportation company (the head of the oil station is not only the place of arrival but also the place of destination of the oil station issued by the final shipping agency from the general agency to the destination of the oil station.

Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff could have known the fact that the date of shipment on the shipment slip issued byCC energy to the Plaintiff, the driver, and the oil transport vehicle, etc. were not related toCC energy or its upper-tier company, and the final destination was confirmed as a gas station other than BB oil station, even if it was confirmed as a gas station other than BB oil station.

③ Generally, in data, the transaction price is paid at one time, and the transaction price is paid and withdrawn on the day of the transaction. However, DD supplied oil fromCC energy and paid the oil price in one way of payment after about two to three days from the supplied oil, and there are frequent cases where the oil price is paid in one way of payment after about two to three days from the supplied oil.

④ DD consistently asked PPP, who was an employee of the NP station operated by NP, to find out that the PPP had no place to purchase fuel at low prices, and DD began to conduct transactions withCC energy after obtaining the business registration certificate ofCC energy, the certificate of petroleum sales registration, the certificate of tax base, and the certificate of corporate identification, etc., the representative director ofCC energy, by consistently inquiring the PPP, who was an employee of the NP station operated by NP.

⑤ As in the instant case, the Tax Tribunal consistently stated that: (a) the gas station operator who received notice of correction and correction of the value-added tax for the first and second term portion of January 2009 on the ground that it received tax invoices fromCC energy without actual transactions; (b) the first business registration certificate at the time of the transaction; (c) the business director’s name; and (d) the fact thatCC energy was actually operated; and (c) the fact that it was transferred the transaction price to the head and the representative director of the bank; and (d) the fact that it requested the tax accountant of the same tax accounting office asCC energy to keep books on the grounds that it received tax invoices without actual transactions; and (e) the transaction date seems to have been consistently stated to have been aware of the business director ofCC energy through the introduction of the tax accountant (from April 28, 2009 to December 30, 2009; and (e) the supplier appears to have purchased the oil transaction to fall under Article 17(1) of the Act on Petroleum Business after being amended by Act No. 9370 of January 30, 20, 200001.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.