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

A. From January 1, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) operated an oil station in the mutual name, “OOOri 0000, Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju District District District,” and (b) received oil from EE Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Energy”) on January 1, 2009; (c) deducted the supply value on 13 copies of the tax invoice listed in the table (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) from the input tax amount for each taxable period; and (d) filed a tax return for the first period of 2009, respectively.

(The following table omitted):

B. On December 1, 201, the Defendant notified the secondary regional tax office of the result of data research on EE energy, conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and revised and notified the Plaintiff without deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount on the ground that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice due to processing and disguised purchase, and without deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount on the grounds that the Plaintiff received the said tax invoice, the amount of value-added tax of 1, 2009, 000, 2009, 1, 2000, 2000, and 000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,0,00,0,00,00,0,00

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7, 19 through 24, 29 evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, and 1 through 3 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to the rectification and notification of value-added tax

For the following reasons, the defendant's correction and notification of value-added tax is illegal.

A) The Plaintiff, in trading with OOO energy, which is a non-affiliated and spot agency by means of the so-called horizontal transaction or the OO energy, actually paid oil from EE energy, such as the instant tax invoice, and received the instant tax invoice.

B) Even if the actual supplier of oil to the Plaintiff is a third party, not EE energy, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party who has not been negligent in trading EE energy with the actual supplier, even if the Plaintiff commenced transactions with EE energy, received a business registration certificate, a petroleum sales business registration certificate, an oil storage tank lease contract, and a copy of corporate passbook, confirmed the place of business of OO energy and the site of oil storage facilities, and remitted the oil price to the said corporation account, and there is no negligence in trading EE energy as the actual supplier of oil.

C) Although the Defendant initially issued each of the instant dispositions on the grounds that “the instant tax invoice was received without a real transaction,” it was changed for the reason that the actual supplier was different from the supplier under the instant tax invoice, but it is not allowed as an addition or change of the grounds for disposition.

2) As to the rectification and notification of global income tax

The Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact; and (b) imposed an additional tax on lack of evidence pursuant to Article 81(4) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; effective January 1, 2010); and (c) applied the tax invoice to the portion of transaction in 2009, since the said provision is applied from the portion of receiving documents after receiving goods or services on or after January 1, 2010.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination on correction and notification of value-added tax

1) Whether the EE Energy is the actual supplier of oil

Article 17 (2) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax invoice shall not be deducted from output tax amount if the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts. Here, the meaning of the tax invoice is different from the fact that the necessary entries of the tax invoice were entered in the EE energy transaction between the Plaintiff and the Party with respect to the goods or services, but the actual supplier supplied the goods or services and the price and time of the supply are different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). First, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice was supplied to the Plaintiff, including the e.g., the number of witnesses and 5 (including the serial number), and the total tax invoice was supplied to the Plaintiff, and the e.g., HFF, and the e., third supplier, and the e., J. 100 and the e.g., the remaining amount of the tax invoice supplied to the Plaintiff.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a trading party with good faith and negligence

In the instant tax invoice, if the supplier and the supplier were to be different, the input tax invoice cannot be deducted or refunded, and the supplier who was supplied with the tax invoice is not negligent in not knowing the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002; 201Du2228, Dec. 27, 201). Furthermore, considering the fact that the supplier was not aware of the actual name of the supplier, 3G 1 through 4G 5, and that the supplier was not aware of the actual name of the supplier, 3G 1 through 3G 40, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the actual name of the supplier, 4G 9, and 3G 9, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the name of the supplier’s place of business or business, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the sale order of the goods or service.

3) As to the assertion of addition or modification of the grounds for disposition

As seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant changed the reason for the instant disposition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, on whether the Defendant had changed the reason for the instant disposition during the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff to have received the instant tax invoice through the processing and disguised purchase, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant changed the reason for the instant disposition as alleged by the Plaintiff, and even if the Defendant issued each of the instant dispositions on the ground that “the initial tax invoice was received without real transaction,” but the actual supplier changed the reason that it is different from the supplier under the instant tax invoice, even though the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice, all of the said reasons are identical to the fact that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without being supplied with oil from the actual EE energy, and thus, the underlying facts are identical to the fact that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice within the scope of maintaining the identity of the disposition. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

D. Determination on correction and notification of additional tax on global income

With respect to the portion of the instant tax invoice for 2009 transaction, even if it is true, it is considered whether it is impossible to impose additional tax on global income tax. In light of Articles 81(4) and 160-2(2)2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the text and legislative intent of Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the entrepreneur supplied goods or services in relation to the business should receive the evidential documents provided for in subparagraphs of Article 160-2(2) of the former Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "legal evidential documents") from the “person who actually supplied goods or services”, and thus, if the entrepreneur fails to receive the legal evidential documents from “the person who actually supplied the goods or services, it constitutes the subject of additional tax under Article 81(4) of the Income Tax Act, and even if the entrepreneur actually supplied the goods or services from the person who actually supplied the goods or services, it cannot be seen from the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claims are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.