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

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the respective statements in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on May 3, 2002 for the purpose of running oil wholesale and retail business, and transport and storage business.

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff’s business partner XX (hereinafter referred to as “xx), and as a result of the investigation, determined that the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff’s oil equivalent to KRW 513,003,00,000 to the OO oil station, etc. during the business year 2008, but omitted a report on the amount of income equivalent to that amount. In addition, the director of the Central District Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on △△ Petroleum Co., Ltd., Ltd., which is the Plaintiff’s business partner, conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and determined that the Plaintiff omitted a report on the amount of income equivalent to KRW 153,626,00,000 for △△ Petroleum Co.,, Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△ Petroleum”) during the business year 2008.

C. On August 2, 2010, the Defendant notified of each of the above findings as follows: (a) included the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 666,629,00 (=513,000 + KRW 153,626,00; hereinafter “instant issues amount”) in the Plaintiff’s gross income for the business year of 2008; and (b) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 215,120,150 as corporate tax for the business year of 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was supplied with duty-free petroleum for agriculture by △△△△○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△△△△△), and supplied it to farmers who are actual users. The Plaintiff entrusted the sale of part of the remaining oil not used for agriculture to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sold it to the Plaintiff with tax-free petroleum in OO stations, △△△ Petroleum, etc. from January 1, 2008 to June 30 of the same year, and then delivered the proceeds to farmers. In other words, the Plaintiff purchased tax-free petroleum of 1,531,342 liter from △△△△△△△△△△△△△, 987,342, among them, supplied to farmers with the remaining amount of 984,340 liters, and the sales amount of the instant tax-free petroleum to 1,531,342 △△△△△△△△△△△△△, and the sales amount of the revenue amount of the instant tax-free petroleum from 2008.18.18

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

Article 24 of the Special Cases Concerning the Application of Value-Added Tax Rates and Tax Exemptions for Machinery, Materials, and Petroleum for Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, and Fishing. Since Article 24 of the Special Cases Concerning the Application of Value-Added Tax Exemptions, a business operator who supplies duty-free petroleum in his own workplace separates the petroleum supplied as tax-free petroleum and the petroleum supplied as tax-free petroleum in his own workplace and records and keeps it in the books, the Plaintiff must prove that 54,000 liters of petroleum supplied as tax-free petroleum in OO stations and △ Petroleum are part of tax-free petroleum. However, each evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, in light of the following circumstances, the above 54,00 liters of petroleum are deemed to have been supplied as part of agricultural petroleum supplied as tax-free petroleum from △△ and △△△△, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

1) If a taxpayer is supplied with duty-free petroleum, the input tax amount can not be deducted. The Plaintiff received (tax-free petroleum 1,531,342 liters from △△△ and △△△△△ in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice that the Plaintiff was supplied with 544,000 liters, and received the tax invoice that the Plaintiff was deducted from the input tax amount.

2) The place of destination on the certificate of sale and acceptance of oil of the above 544,00 liters is the Plaintiff, but in fact, since the said oil was directly transported and sold from the oil refinery, such as △△△△, without going through the Plaintiff, it seems that the said oil was supplied to farmers by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the process of transporting and selling the said oil is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff entrusted the sale of the remaining fuel or the duty-free petroleum that no longer needs to be used by part of the farmers to whom the duty-free oil was allocated.

3) From January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff did not submit any documentary evidence that may distinguish between the oil actually supplied to farmers and the oil supplied as a taxation, among the duty-free petroleum purchased from the △△△△△△△△, from the duty-free petroleum.

4) The plaintiff asserted that he was entrusted with the sale of duty-free petroleum from farmers, but there is no evidence to see that the plaintiff paid the price for duty-free petroleum to farmers.

3. Conclusion

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