사실관계를 조사한 후에야 밝혀질 수 있는 사항에 있어서는 부과처분에 하자가 있더라도 당연무효는 아님[국승]
early 2010 Heavy3424 ( December 22, 2010)
In a matter that can be found after investigating the facts, even if there is a defect in the disposition of imposition, it shall not be null and void.
The issue of whether the transaction parties indicated in the tax invoice of this case as the supplier are the actual sales company, not the data, can only be identified after an accurate investigation of facts, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an apparent case even if there is a defect, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an inevitable case.
Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
2012Guhap4389. Invalidity of the imposition of value-added tax
KimA
The director of the tax office
November 16, 2012
December 14, 2012
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On September 3, 2010, the Defendant confirmed that each imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of 2008 against the Plaintiff, the value-added tax for the first period of 2009, the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, and the value-added tax for the second period of 2009 is null and void.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From December 1, 2007 to 340, the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the oil refining business in the name of "B gas station" in the name of "B gas station in Taeju-dong, Taeju-dong, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the total supply value (hereinafter "tax invoice of this case") by receiving a tax invoice in an amount equivalent to KRW 000 in total of the supply value as follows from the second to second taxable periods in 2008, Co., Ltd., DD Energy, EE architecture, and FF Energy (hereinafter "Transaction of this case") during the taxable period from "208 to 209:
B. The Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact; (b) did not deduct the relevant input tax from the output tax amount; and (c) on September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 of value-added tax for the second term of 2008, value-added tax 000 for the first term of 2009, and value-added tax 00 for the second term of 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
C. On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 14, 2010, and was dismissed on December 22, 2010.
[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 2, and 3 each 1 through 21, Gap evidence 4-1 through 22, Gap evidence 5-1 through 119, and Eul evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is void as a matter of course
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff confirmed whether the instant transaction partner is a real petroleum retailer or a copy of a certificate of registration of petroleum sales business or a copy of a passbook, and paid the oil price by obtaining a tax invoice from the said transaction partner to comply with the actual transaction details. Nevertheless, solely on the ground that the instant transaction partner’s data were revealed, the Defendant denied the input tax deduction as a false tax invoice and imposed the value-added tax on the sole basis of the fact that the instant transaction partner’s data were revealed, not only the
B. Determination
A disposition of taxation imposed on a person who does not have any factual basis, such as the legal relation or income or act subject to taxation, is significant and obvious, but in a case where there are objective circumstances to mislead him as to any legal relation or fact subject to taxation, which is not subject to taxation, and it can only be identified by accurately investigating the factual basis as to whether it is subject to taxation, if the defect is serious, it cannot be deemed apparent even if it is serious, and thus, it is unlawful to mislead him/her of the facts subject to taxation.
No taxation disposition cannot be deemed null and void as it is (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268, Sept. 4, 2002). The issue of whether the instant transaction partners, which are indicated as suppliers, are real oil sales agents, not material. The issue of the instant tax invoice is whether the instant transaction partners possess oil storage tanks for operating the oil sales business, oil transport vehicles, and other business assets, and whether the oil was stored in the shipment box issued by the instant transaction parties, and it is possible to accurately examine the facts as to whether the instant transaction partners were indicated in the shipment slip issued by the instant transaction parties, and the issue of the instant tax invoice to the Seoul District Court 100Du13268, Sept. 1, 200). The issue of the instant tax invoice is not sufficient to conclude that the instant case’s tax invoice was invalid because it is not clear that the instant transaction partners were included in the 30-year supply of the instant tax invoice, and that the Seoul District Court 201Da3127, supra.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.