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

A. From June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff is operating a gas station under the trade name of "YY station" from Bupyeong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City from 300-146. From August 14, 1996, the Plaintiff is operating a gas station under the trade name of "YY station" from 200, Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "YY station", "YY station").

B. In operating the XX gas station, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 305,945,000 of the supply price during the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008 from the ○○ Petroleum Incheon Branch (hereinafter “○○ Petroleum”), and received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 31,545,000 of the supply price during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, and filed a return of value-added tax for the pertinent taxable period from the output tax amount by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. In operating the YY station, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 605,327,000 for the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2008 from ○ Petroleum (the tax invoice in this case and the tax invoice in this paragraph (b) collectively referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) and subsequently deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and filed a return on the first taxable amount in 2008 with the head of Seocheon Tax Office for the first taxable period of value-added tax.

D. On April 12, 2010, the director of the tax office of North Korea issued a revised notice of KRW 54,596,960 for the first period of 2008, and KRW 5,452,310 for the second period of 2008, on the grounds that the tax invoice received from ○○ Petroleum was falsely stated in the operation of the XX gas station.

E. On May 1, 2010, the head of Seocheon District Tax Office: (a) deemed that the tax invoice received from ○○ Petroleum was falsely stated in operating the Y station; (b) accordingly, (c) subsequently deducted the input tax amount; and (d) notified Defendant Northern District Tax Office’s correction and notification of KRW 108,565,360 for the second period of the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition” in addition to the disposition imposed on April 12, 2010 by Defendant Northern District Tax Office”).

F. Accordingly, on July 12, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a trial against the director of the Tax Tribunal on July 12, 2010, respectively, on July 30, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on December 27, 2010 and November 3 of the same year respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case after receiving the actual supply of oil from ○○ Petroleum, and paying the price therefrom. Therefore, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to have been issued falsely due to the processing transaction or disguised transaction.

Even if ○○ Petroleum supplied non-data oil to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was not aware of such fact, and thus constitutes a bona fide trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

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

(A) The fact that a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer for value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared in a false way without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and thus, the tax office’s substantial proof of whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer is considerably false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and documentary evidence, as to the actual transaction with a supplier stated in the tax invoice, need to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

In addition, a tax invoice shall be issued from an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed to be a person who actually receives goods or services from an entrepreneur who does not form a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services, or who actually performs transactions of supplying goods or services to a supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

(B) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the evidence stated in Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 8 and the overall purport of the pleadings.

① As a result of the tax investigation of ○○ Petroleum from February 17, 2009 to April 20 of the same year by the director of the Central Tax Office (the period subject to investigation: November 16, 2007 to September 30, 2008), ○○ Petroleum did not use oil storage facilities and transportation equipment, and 6,941,00,000,000 won by means of manipulating evidence of financial transactions without actual transactions during the value-added tax period, and 2,323,00,000 won from GW Energy, and 2,323,00,000 won was delivered from GW Energy, and 309,301,000,000 won was investigated, and the director of the Central Tax Office of the Central Tax Office of China issued tax invoices to customers without actual transactions. The representative of ○○ Petroleum and the director of the Central Tax Office of the Central Tax Office of the Central Tax Office filed a criminal charge against ○○ Petroleum and its representative.

② At the time of the above tax investigation, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received the processed tax invoice from the purchaser at the time of the above tax investigation, and that the Plaintiff received the remittance of the purchase price and returned the money by account transfer, and that the transaction with the SJ Energy, KI Energy, DS Energy, and JI Energy was processed, and that the remainder of the sales was actually traded by supplying the non-processed oil purchased from ParkB to the other sales. However, the Plaintiff did not submit any specific data regarding the purchase of non-data.

③ The shipment slips (Evidence 10) issued by the Plaintiff from ○ Petroleum are a third party, not ○○ Petroleum, and the place of destination is indicated by ○○ Petroleum or any other gas station, not the Plaintiff. The instant tax invoice and its date and quantity are partly different.

④ The Plaintiff remitted the oil price from the transaction of the instant tax invoice to the corporate account of ○○ Petroleum, but the said price was transferred to another account and paid in full in cash, and then deposited again into another individual’s account in the name of another individual (this is the method of money laundering conducted to conceal the processing transaction).

(C) According to the above facts, ○○ Petroleum, the issuer of the instant tax invoice, is the so-called data, and the instant tax invoice was prepared in a false manner without real transactions with ○○ Petroleum.

Therefore, the plaintiff must prove the existence of real transactions such as the tax invoice of this case with ○○ Petroleum. Accordingly, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 12 and the testimony of YCC by witnesses is the same. [It is difficult to believe that regular AA was issued a detention warrant due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice) but it was in the state of suspension of prosecution due to the unknown whereabouts and the fact that the above regular AA had prepared a comprehensive transaction document after a considerable period of time from the date of transaction. Although ParkCC testified in this court that the plaintiff was actually supplied oil to the plaintiff as the head of ○○ Petroleum's business, he testified to the effect that ○○ Petroleum's employee was paid wages or was actually engaged in business activities, and that ○○ Petroleum was a business operator separate from the social insurance, and that there was no specific explanation about the purchase place of ○○ Petroleum without any explanation about the credibility of testimony, the plaintiff's assertion that there was no lack of evidence to prove the above evidence of the non-prosecution disposition.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide or without fault or not

(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 received the tax shall prove that there was no negligence on the part of the person who did not know the above fact of the name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

(B) In light of the following circumstances as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier as indicated in the instant tax invoice, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the supplier and the actual supplier, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

① Since the Plaintiff had been operating a gas station since 1996, the Plaintiff was aware of the normal structure and distribution route of the supply of oil, the general form and method of transactions in the industry, and the actual state and risk of transactions in the material industry widely spreaded to the oil industry.

② In light of the fact that the business partners indicated in the shipment slips submitted by the Plaintiff as the evidence of the instant transaction not only the ○○ Petroleum but also the place of destination of the Plaintiff’s operation as the other business entity, not the YY oil station, the place of destination was indicated as the Plaintiff’s ○○ Petroleum is also indicated as the Plaintiff’s operation. In order to prevent damage to the purchase of oil without data, the Plaintiff was necessary to investigate and verify whose actual supplier was the oil supplier, and the Plaintiff was not the actual supplier, with due care, was not the Plaintiff’s ○○ Petroleum was not the actual supplier.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that, in trading with ○○ Petroleum, the Plaintiff received the shipment slip of the oil oil issued by the transporter and kept it temporarily and exchanged with the shipment slip in the name of ○○ Petroleum (the preparatory document submitted by the Plaintiff on August 17, 201). In light of the fact that the shipment slip is an important material to confirm that the oil is traded through normal distribution channels, it is difficult to view such transaction as a normal oil transaction method.

④ ○○ Petroleum did not fully use the oil storage or transportation facilities, and appears to have issued and issued a large amount of false tax invoices in the material form by pretending actual transactions with various oil suppliers. If ○○ Petroleum, etc. were to have paid more attention in doing oil transactions with ○○ Petroleum, the Plaintiff could have known that the instant tax invoice was a false or processed tax invoice prepared differently from the actual transaction process.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.