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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of OOO of the principal tax of value-added tax for the first term of February 8, 201 on the Plaintiff on the first term of February 2009 and the imposition of OOO of the additional tax for the first term of March 1, 2009 on March 1, 2013 and the imposition of OO of the corporate tax for the first term of March 1, 2009 are revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person running gas station business from February 2004 to OO-dong 1240 of O-si O-dong 1240.

B. In 209, the Plaintiff received two copies of the tax invoice of the supply price of the 1st century from BB Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B Energy”), and filed a value-added tax return after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and included it in the calculation of deductible expenses. The Defendant denied the input tax amount by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice, and added an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount of the tax invoice received differently from the fact to the corporate tax amount, the Plaintiff again received a disposition of imposition of value-added tax for 209 KRW 100,000, KRW 2000, KRW 201, KRW 200, KRW 201, KRW 208, KRW 200, KRW 201, KRW 200, KRW 201, KRW 208, KRW 200, KRW 208, KRW 201, KRW 209, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 7 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff was supplied with snow-free oil from BB energy and received the instant tax invoice. Since the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(2) Even if the actual supplier of oil is not BB energy, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and there was no negligence in not knowing such fact, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

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

Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that if any of the items entered in a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact, the title of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and a person to whom such title belongs exists, the person to whom such title belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer and shall be deemed to have engaged in transactions of goods or service in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996; 9Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Since a tax invoice is issued by an entrepreneur who supplies goods or service under the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person who is obliged to pay value-added tax shall be deemed to have established a nominal legal relationship with the entrepreneur who actually supplied the goods or service to whom the goods or service was supplied, the former constitutes a person who actually supplied the goods or service, and thus, constitutes a person who actually supplied the goods or service.

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

(A) Unless there are special circumstances, the entrepreneur who actually supplies and the supplier’s other tax invoices are different from the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the supplier was unaware of the fact that the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the supplier was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997).

(B) According to the statement Nos. 2 and 3thm (including paper numbers) of BB Energy, the Plaintiff received a copy of the certificate of registration for petroleum sales business as well as a business registration certificate with BB Energy, the Plaintiff transferred the amount corresponding thereto to BB energy corporate account after having received the instant tax invoice from BB Energy, and the Plaintiff prepared a document confirming that BB energy transaction with the Plaintiff was true. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not know that the aforementioned evidence and the statement Nos. 3 and 6 were all the arguments, i.e., ① the distribution structure and route of the oil supply, the general form or method of the industry, the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff had been supplied with BB energy in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff had been supplied with BB energy in the name of the Plaintiff’s business establishment and did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff had been supplied with BB energy in the name of the Plaintiff’s business establishment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case, which is based on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is different from the facts, is all legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.