2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The plaintiff is a corporation that operates oil sales business under the trade name of Hanyang Yangyang-gun, Yangyangyang-gun 000-4, the Hanyangyang-gun, the Doyang 000-4, and the plaintiff entrusted KimCC, the director of the plaintiff from August 2006 to March 31, 2008, with the operation of the above gas station, and KimCC operated the above gas station for the above period.

"The plaintiff received three copies of tax invoices equivalent to 323,618,000 won in total from ○ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "○ Energy") during the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "○ Energy"), and the defendant filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount on August 8, 2009. The plaintiff denied the deduction of the input tax amount pursuant to the tax invoice of this case on the ground that the tax invoice of this case received from ○ Energy is a tax invoice different from the fact, and issued a disposition to correct and notify 5,089,520 won of value-added tax of 1,208 (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case").

The plaintiff appealed and filed an objection on November 6, 2009, and the appeal on March 8, 2010, respectively, and received a decision of dismissal in each of the above procedures, and filed the lawsuit in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 3, witness KimCC's testimony

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff actually purchased oil from ○○ Energy and received the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice. Even if ○○ Energy falls under the category of materials that issued the sales and purchase tax invoice without a real transaction, the Plaintiff did not know such fact and was negligent in not knowing such fact, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

"The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact" refers to a case where the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person who actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, and the price and time of the goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). The investigator in charge of Suwon Tax Office conducted an investigation based on the data such as the ○○ Energy's place of business, oil purchase place, financial transaction details, shipping slip, and tax invoice, etc. As a result, the ○○ Energy was identified as the so-called data that issued the sales and purchase tax invoice without actual transaction. The ○○ Energy registered the ○○ Tax Office's business registration and the ○○ Tax Office's registration of petroleum business as the oil storage facility, but actually entered and withdrawn at the above facility (No. 4).

An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice shall not be allowed to deduct or refund an 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 fact that the purchaser was unaware of the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

According to the evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3, 6-1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 7, 9-7, 1-7, 10, 10, and witness KimCC’s testimony, the KimCC received a copy of the business registration certificate and a copy of the corporate deposit passbook from ○○ Energy around November 2007, and received a copy of the business registration certificate and a copy of the corporate deposit passbook by facsimile at the time of commencement of oil transaction between ○○ Energy. The plaintiff received a detailed statement from ○○ Energy and paid oil to ○○ Energy.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to view that the Plaintiff was unaware of the false name of the ○○○ Energy, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the fact. Rather, the above facts are as follows: (i) if the oil was delivered to the gas station through normal distribution channels, one of the four Chapters 4 issued at the time of shipment (the date and time of shipment, the place of arrival, the transport equipment, the volume of shipment, temperature and weight of the goods, etc.) by the 0-day supplier’s signature on the 0-day cargo delivery route after delivery of the relevant oil transport vehicle to the 0-day driver’s signature on the 0-day cargo delivery route; (ii) if the 1-12 of the 0-day cargo delivery box, the remaining 6-E witness testimony, the Plaintiff’s signature on the 0-day cargo delivery method and proportion of the 0-day cargo delivery tank to the 0-day seller’s signature on the 0-day cargo delivery method, the Plaintiff’s signature on the 0-day cargo delivery method and proportion of each.

3. Conclusion

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