2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiffs were those who run gas station business in the name of "OOOO 00 on both sides of Kimpo-si," and when they reported and paid each value-added tax for the second period of January 2, 2009, the plaintiffs received four tax invoices (including "the tax invoice of this case" and "the individual tax invoice of this case" is the tax invoice of this case, and the individual tax invoice of this case is specified as the number of the above table) and deducted the input tax amount.

B. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant deemed that 1, 3, and 4 of the instant tax invoice were processed inputs (the second is deemed to have been normally purchased through GG Petroleum Companies, Inc., hereinafter “GG Petroleum Companies”) and notified that the value-added tax would be levied by deducting the input tax amount from the input tax amount of 1, 009, and 2, 2009, and was not adopted on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ request for pre-assessment review was a processing transaction without any real transaction, and then revised and imposed value-added tax amount of 00 won for the first half of 2009 and value-added tax of 00 for the second half of 2009, respectively.

C. On May 6, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an objection with the Deputy Director of the Central Regional Tax Office on May 6, 201, and on June 9, 2011, the Deputy Director of the Central Tax Office dismissed the objections on the grounds that the Plaintiffs were aware of the fact that they actually supplied oil, but that they were different from the facts in 1, 3, and 4

D. On September 8, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On April 19, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that even if the Plaintiffs were actually supplied oil, the tax invoice is different from the facts, and the Plaintiffs’ good faith is not recognized. However, the tax invoice regularly purchased through GG petroleum companies is not No. 2, but No. 4, and accordingly, the tax base and tax amount should be corrected.

E. According to the decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant: (a) calculated the input tax deduction of 2 tax invoices; (b) deducted the input tax amount of 4 tax invoices from the Plaintiffs on May 17, 2012; and (c) added 000 won of the value-added tax for 1 year 2009; (b) reduced the amount of 00 won of the value-added tax for 2 year 2009; and (c) reduced the amount of value-added tax for 1 year 2009 (=00 won +00 won); and (b) reduced the amount of value-added tax for 2 year 2009 to 00 won (hereinafter referred to as “value-added tax disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap 2 through 5, Gap 7, 15, 24, 25, and 26, Eul 1 (including household numbers), and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs purchased oil from the non-party company and received the tax invoice of this case, and all of the tax invoice of this case are true, and even if not, the plaintiffs were bona fide and not negligent, and the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

In addition to the respective testimonys of Gap, Eul, 1, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 27, the following facts may be found:

(1) The details of the shipment slip of the non-party company related to the instant tax invoice are as follows.

(Contents omitted)

(2) The details of the shipment of oil similar to each vehicle number are as follows.

(Exemption from Details of shipment)

(3) The date of shipment, the vehicle number, the driver, and the shipping volume of the non-party company's shipment marks are consistent with the details of the similar shipping by vehicle number, and the plaintiffs have the shipping and storage confirmation that they entered 20,000 L by the driver of the above vehicle number on each of the above shipping dates.

(4) The above drivers were present in this court as witness and testified that the vehicle number of each of the above vehicles was 20,000 L as stated in the delivery quantity to the gas station by the plaintiffs.

(5) The Plaintiffs deposited money equivalent to the viable payment in the bank account in the name of the non-party company on the date of each shipment.

(6) The plaintiffs prepared daily cash receipts and disbursements and recorded in detail the details of oil supplied, including transactions with the non-party company, in the sales status list, sales volume, settlement form, time, and customers, and separately prepare a monthly inventory, monthly load, shipping volume, and inventory volume at the end of the month, and reported it to the Korean Stock Exchange, which is an incorporated association, even though this was reported, the non-party company involved in the instant tax invoice.

(7) On September 23, 2008, the plaintiffs prepared a petroleum product supply contract with the non-party company, and kept the name of the non-party company's business registration, the certificate of business registration, and the certificate of personal seal impression, and the name cards of the representative director Han Young-ho.

(8) On August 28, 2009, the shipment from August 28, 2009, among the details of oil oil shipment by vehicle number, is related to the tax invoice No. 4, and the non-party company supplied transit to the Plaintiff via GG petroleum company.

D. Determination

First, it is true that the tax invoices 1, 2, and 3 are different.

The meaning of the entry in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact that the necessary entry in the tax invoice is difficult to determine whether the goods or services are supplied or not, and whether the tax invoice was actually supplied or not, and whether the supplier is a non-party company. According to the above facts, the number of the non-party company's pre-delivery and the number of vehicles are in accord with each other in the remaining items except for the order and destination, and (2) the drivers of the non-party company were indirectly supplied via the Plaintiff. (3) In light of the above facts, it is difficult to determine that the entry in the tax invoice was not in conformity with the above entry in the transaction list or monthly transaction log prepared by the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs were not in conformity with the order of the non-party company's pre-delivery and the number of vehicles. In light of the above facts, it appears that the Plaintiffs were supplied with the non-party company's pre-delivery through the above entry in the list or trade log prepared by the Plaintiffs, and that the Plaintiffs were not in compliance with the order of each party's trading.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.