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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of rectification and notification to the Plaintiff on January 31, 2013 as to the second value-added tax ○○○○○○ in 201, the first value-added tax ○○○ in 2012, and the second value-added tax ○○ in 2011 is revoked.

A. From December 9, 2009, the Plaintiff operated a gas station in the trade name, “AAAAAgas station 5,” from ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, 123-1, on February 23, 2012. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice as listed below from the BB Energy Co., Ltd, and BB Energy Co., Ltd, located in Busan (hereinafter referred to as “BB Energy”) and the CB Energy Co., Ltd, located in Incheon (hereinafter referred to as “B Energy”), and deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount at the time of filing a value-added tax return.

-Sgd. -

B. The director of the Busan Regional Tax Office and the director of the Incheon District Tax Office respectively conducted a tax investigation on BB Energy and BB Energy Co., Ltd. located in Busan, and filed a complaint as data against BB Energy and BB Energy Co., Ltd., and notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming the tax invoice issued by each of the above companies to be a false tax invoice.

C. From November 7, 2012 to January 4, 2013, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect toCC gas stations, and confirmed that the sales tax invoice issued during the second and first taxable period of 201 and 2012 with respect to five gas stations, including the Plaintiff, was a processed transaction. On the other hand, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office confirmed the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff as a false tax invoice and notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming the tax invoice issued by theCC gas station to be a false tax invoice.

D. From September 10, 2012 to October 19, 2012, the Defendant conducted a trade order-related investigation with the Plaintiff, and subsequently, deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and did not deduct the input tax amount related to the value-added tax from the output tax amount, thereby notifying the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the KRW ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

E. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on July 29, 2013, but the said request was dismissed on October 24, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice by being actually supplied with oil from BB Energy andCC gas stations, and thus, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the actual supplier of the oil supplied by the Plaintiff was not a BB energy orCC oil station, the Plaintiff confirmed the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, the oil wholesale business license copy, the account copy, the certificate of import declaration, etc. prior to the transaction, and continued to engage in a normal transaction, such as remitting the oil to the account, and thus, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether a tax invoice is false

A) The phrase “tax invoice different from the fact” under Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) where the input tax deduction for the tax invoice received in the course of transaction is denied refers to a case where the requisite entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the entity that actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services, and the price and time of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Thus, even if a transaction of supplying the goods, etc. actually exists, the supplier constitutes a “tax invoice different from the fact that the issuer is a different from the fact.”

Meanwhile, in the event that a tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer for value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared in a false way without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and the tax office’s substantial proof exists as to whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed. In the event that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer has been proved to a considerable extent that it is false, it is necessary for a taxpayer to prove that it is easy for him/her to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the actual transaction with a supplier listed in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200

B) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 7 as well as the following circumstances, recognizing that the Plaintiff was actually supplied oil set forth in the instant tax invoice, it is reasonable to deem that the business entity that supplied oil to the Plaintiff is a supplier other than BB energy orCC oil, which is the supplier under the tax invoice, and therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice written differently from the fact by the supplier. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) The BB Energy Co., Ltd. located in Busan was registered in the name of JeonD on October 28, 2010, and was closed without permission around November 201. As a result of the Busan Regional Tax Office’s investigation, the BB Energy Co., Ltd. received the instant tax invoice in the first and second taxable periods of 2012, which were verified as the so-called data that issued the processed sales tax invoice after receiving the processed sales tax invoice without substantial supply of goods or services during the pertinent taxable period of 1st and 2011.

In addition, the Busan regional tax office had acquired the gas station in the name of the owner of the gas station in various locations, such asCC stations, immediately after the existence of a special income and property by the owner of the BB energy, and the employees of the BB energy company stated that the BBD did not work in the usual office at the time of the investigation, and that the EE had the name of the BD while doing so, and that all ParkF and EE were accused of the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. In light of the fact that the FF and EE actually operated the BB energy, it was deemed that the FF had actually operated the BB energy, and that the BD and E had the power to file a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

(2) The BB Energy Co., Ltd. located in Incheon was launched on December 1, 2011, and was voluntarily closed on December 31, 2012. As a result of the Incheon Tax Office’s tax investigation, BB Energy Co., Ltd. issued processed sales tax invoices in the first taxable period that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice during the first taxable period of 2012. Moreover, the Incheon Tax Office filed a complaint against the E on the fact that the formerD did not know of the operating status of the BB Energy Co., Ltd. and stated that the E was the actual actor, and immediately after the formerD was designated as the representative of the BB Energy Co., Ltd. without any special income and property, in light of the fact that the E had actually operated the former CB Energy Co., Ltd., Ltd., and that it was suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders and Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, etc.

(3) On September 15, 201, the term “CC gas station located in thecheon” was a place of business closed ex officio on June 30, 2012. Daejeon regional tax office: (a) changed its business owner on three occasions after it closes its official business (finally changed to the Plaintiff’s representative handG); (b) compared to the purchase amount during the first taxable period of the year 2012, the sales ( approximately KRW 240 million) compared to the purchase amount during the first taxable period of theCC gas station ( KRW 450 million). In light of the fact that the sulfur village, which substantially managed theCC gas station, supplied the gas station purchased the gas to the Plaintiff and other business offices; and (c) concluded that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was not issued under the name of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff made a statement on the purchase of the gas gas station at the time of the investigation, taking into account the fact that it did not receive the tax invoice at all during the first taxable period of the year 200-year period.

(4) The BB Energy Co., Ltd. reported a considerable amount of sales and purchase during the second taxable period in 201. However, from July 201 to August 201, 201, from July 9, 201 to August 201, BB Energy Co., Ltd., Ltd.: (a) deposited and stored 3,790 joint oil storage tank with a capacity of 9,600 joint oil storage tank from July 2, 201 to August 2, 201; (b) did not have any oil other than selling the full amount of the aforementioned transit from August 1, 201 to September 2, 201. However, the instant tax invoice was issued between October 31, 2011 and March 11, 2012; (c) the BB Energy Corporation did not report the status of oil sales to the Korea National Oil Corporation (the Plaintiff is obligated to report the status of oil trading to the Korea National Oil Corporation).

2) Whether a bona fide trading party has fulfilled its duty of care

A) Unless there are extenuating circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice in the name of the tax invoice, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove that the person who received the tax amount was not negligent in not knowing the above fact of misrepresentation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

B) The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the above facts and was not negligent in not knowing the above facts, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing the above facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Since the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and transactions without authentic documentation are frequent, it is necessary to pay particular attention to whether an oil supplier is an actual supplier if the oil supplier is an ordinary gas station operator. Thus, the Plaintiff seems to have sufficiently known about the normal method and distribution route of the oil supply, the general forms of transactions, and the actual conditions of transactions in the data, etc. for ten years.

(2) The shipment slips issued and delivered when oil is supplied is an important material to confirm that oil is traded through normal distribution channels. Even if there is no legal obligation to keep the shipment slips in custody to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is not obliged to present all objective evidentiary documents related to oil storage, such as the shipment slips delivered from BB energy or account books.

(3) 원고는 2011. 7.경부터 주식회사 BB에너지에 선입금을 하기 시작하여 2011. 10.경 유류를 실제 입고하기 전까지 약 1억 3,000만 원을 선입금하였는데, 특히 원고의 감사로서 AAAA주유소를 실질적으로 운영하여 온 윤PP은 2009년경 진천군에서 UUUU주유소를 운영하면서 자료상으로 판명된 ㈜QQQ로부터 허위 세금계산서를 교부받아 매입세액을 공제받았다는 이유로 부가가치세 등을 경정・고지받은 전력이 있다.

In light of the fact that the transaction statement of BB energy and the LBR was made on July 31, 201 after the date of the transaction, which the Plaintiff verified prior to the transaction with BB energy, and that the certificate of import declaration was made on August 12, 201 after the date of issuance, the certificate of import declaration also became the date of August 12, 201. The Plaintiff’s assertion that BB energy was the actual oil supplier before commencing the transaction with BB energy is not reliable.

(4) The Plaintiff is obligated to verify whether the other party is legally qualified and is equipped with the human and physical facilities that can supply oil according to the sales contract. However, while engaging in the BB energy and high-amount oil transactions with the BB energy that had no fiduciary relationship, the Plaintiff merely confirmed only the business registration certificate and the petroleum sales registration certificate of the instant transaction party, but did not go through the procedure of checking the oil storage facility or office during the trading period.

(5) The Plaintiff appears to have been supplied with oil less than the market price from BB energy andCC oil stations. In the event of purchasing oil through an ordinary agency or intermediary wholesaler, etc., the profit of the agency, etc. is likely to be included in the oil price, and thus, it is not likely that the oil price may be collected rather than the case of purchasing oil directly from oil oil. Therefore, even if there is a difference between domestic oil refinery and imported oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil price, it is reasonable to deem that there is a circumstance to suspect that the oil oil oil price supplied less than the market price had a problem in the process of distribution.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.