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

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "00 interest rate" of No. 7 of the first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's 6, 17, and 18's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's 7, 13

“2) Whether a person has fulfilled his/her duty of care as a bona fide trading party

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

According to these legal principles, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 9, the plaintiff paid oil to the account of YO Energy and CS Energy, and the fact that the plaintiff received documents, etc. as to the import of oil from YO energy from Y. However, in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was unaware of, or was not negligent in, the fact that the plaintiff was unaware of, the fact that the plaintiff was unaware of, or was unaware of, the supplier's name, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) In light of the reality of the oil industry that has emerged as a social problem since the complicated supply structure and non-tax-free oil, if the oil supplier is an operator of the ordinary gas station, it is necessary to pay special attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier. At the time of the Plaintiff’s audit and inspection, the representative’s husband, who was the actual operator, was fully aware of the normal structure of the oil supply and distribution route of the oil supply, the general form or method of the industry, and the actual situation and risk of the material transaction widely spread to the oil industry.

(2) Pursuant to the Yellow H’s proposal that visited a gas station through the introduction of the SSC (which is currently the Plaintiff’s intra-company director) that was engaged in the same industry, SSI paid approximately KRW 130 million from July 1, 2011 to August 17, 201, and traded in an exceptional manner in which the oil was first supplied for the first time during October 31, 201, and purchased a large amount of oil with a 50 won per liter than the normal supply price of oil refineries, and thus, it was necessary to pay more attention to whether a supplier is not a disguised business operator or not to be supplied with normal oil.

(3) In a case where oil is transported to a gas station through normal distribution channels, the shipment slips (the date and time of shipment, the name of the customer, the arrival, destination, transportation equipment, items, temperature, and weight) issued at the time of shipment at the oil storage facilities, etc. in the purchaser’s location are delivered. As such, the gas station operator should examine whether the name of the customer and the place of shipment indicated in the shipment slips coincide with the supplier of the gas station, the place of arrival, the transportation equipment coincide with the transport vehicle, and each item is accurately recorded without any omission. In addition, if there is any error or defect in its contents and form, the gas station operator should take active measures to confirm the supplier’s oil storage facilities, office offices, or the distribution route of the oil.

(4) However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff closely examined the shipment slips, which are important data to verify that the oil is transacted through normal distribution channels, or that the Plaintiff took active measures, such as visiting the YO Energy and the oil storage facilities or offices of the oil reservoir, etc. Rather, YO Energy was deposited before July 8, 201 when the Plaintiff leased the oil storage facilities (see evidence A No. 4). In light of the fact that YO energy was deposited before the date of July 8, 2011 (see, e.g., evidence 4), it appears that the Plaintiff started transactions with the YH merely believed the content of the YH proposal without verification as to whether the Plaintiff had the ability to supply oil below the market price and facilities (the Plaintiff’s actual operator, received the tax invoice in the name of TOO corporation from the data on the data on the second taxable period of 2009 at the time of the operation of the SDJI Oil station, and thus, it appears that the transaction risk was saved after deducting the input tax amount on the basis.

(5) Although sulfurH presented the business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, and oil import documents, etc. of YO energy and CSS oil stations in the course of transaction, and received the price by supplying oil as ordered in the above business entity’s account, it is merely an ordinary way of using the existing registration name and transaction data in order to disguised normal transaction in the data transaction, and it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff was not negligent on the ground that the Plaintiff was not aware of the disguised fact of the tax invoice.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.