2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first term of 2009, value-added tax of 000 won for the second term of 2009, value-added tax of 1 year of 2010, value-added tax of 2000 won for the second term of 2010, value-added tax of 000 won for the second term of 201, value-added tax of 000 for the second term of 2011, value-added tax of 2000 for the second term of 201, and each imposition of global income tax for the second term of 2009 against the Plaintiffs on December 6, 2012 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiffs, from February 10, 1999, operate a gas station with the trade name of OOsi from 000-0 to AA gas station.

B. From January 2009 to December 201, 201, the Plaintiffs received each tax invoice (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) with the same content as indicated in attached Table 1 from Teo-il and five companies (hereinafter “each of the instant transaction parties”) during the period of value-added tax, and deducted each of the said tax invoices from the output tax amount at the time of filing the value-added tax return for each of the relevant taxable periods, and included it in the necessary expenses.

C. The director of the Central Regional Tax Office conducted a value-added tax investigation on the plaintiffs, and confirmed that the plaintiffs received a false tax invoice from each of the transaction parties of this case, and notified the defendant thereof.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the amount of the tax invoice received from each of the instant transaction partners was underreporting the tax base in an unjust manner; (b) did not deduct the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount; (c) on September 17, 2012, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice included the amount of each of the instant tax invoice in the amount of the global income tax to be deducted from the output tax amount; (d) on September 17, 2012, the amount of the value-added tax for the first term of 2009, the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 200, the value-added tax for the second term of 200, the amount of value-added tax for the first term of 2010, the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 200, and the amount of value-added tax for the second term of 200, the amount of each of the global income tax to be reverted to Y, the Plaintiff’s tax base for the year 200, 2010.

E. On December 6, 2012, the head of the OO having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the income tax of Plaintiff OOO also notified Plaintiff OO of KRW 000 global income tax for the year 2009, KRW 000 global income tax for the year 2010, and KRW 000 global income tax for the year 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the specific details of the PlaintiffO’s global income and the claim for revocation of the disposition are lawful

On December 6, 2012, Plaintiff OO sought revocation of each of the above dispositions on the premise that the Defendant imposed each of the comprehensive income tax stated in the purport of the claim against Plaintiff OO on December 6, 2012. However, the record reveals that the Defendant, not the Defendant, but the head of OO tax office, imposed each of the above Plaintiff on December 6, 2012 (see subparagraph 1-1). Therefore, the Defendant of an appeal suit seeking revocation of the above disposition must be the head of OO tax office, the relevant disposition agency. Therefore, the part seeking revocation of each of the global income tax and each of the dispositions as of December 6, 2012 by PlaintiffOOO, among the instant lawsuit, is unlawful as it is against the other party, insofar as the Defendant had no standing. The Defendant’s objection pointing this out is justified.

2. Whether the remaining dispositions are lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs actually purchased oil from each of the instant transaction partners, but only purchased oil without authentic documentation in order to raise high profits for each of the instant transaction partners and sold it to the transaction parties including the instant gas station. A separate view is that value-added tax may be imposed on each of the instant transaction partners, as long as each of the instant transaction partners actually supplied oil, each of the instant tax invoices cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the transaction partner who supplied oil to the gas station of this case is not a transaction partner of this case, the Plaintiffs did not know that the actual supplier of the oil was different from the entry of the supplier in the tax invoice, and did not know it.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 17(1) and (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11120, Dec. 31, 2011) provide that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. It means that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, or transaction, which is the subject of taxation, belongs to the person to whom the tax invoice belongs, is the person to whom the tax invoice belongs, and where the necessary entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the party to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries such as the contract, etc., written between the parties to the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu.

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in the evidence Nos. 4 through 19 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiffs are not directly supplied with oil from the above business partners, but provided with it from a third party. However, it is reasonable to view that the above business parties provided necessary data, such as a tax invoice, with respect to a real transaction between the plaintiffs and the third party, and play the role of mediating real transactions.

① As a result of data research on each customer of this case, it was found that all sales transactions during each taxable period of value-added tax, which had been traded with the gas station of this case, were confirmed as a processed transaction, and that the amount deposited at the sales office was in the form of typical money laundering for the purpose of avoiding financial tracking, such as immediately withdrawing in cash after being transferred to the purchase office account.

② The representative of the BB company, the representative of theCC company, the KimO, the representative of D Energy, and the representative of DD Energy, were accused of having issued false tax invoices to customers including the instant gas station, but escape from the prosecution, but the status of the suspension of indictment is the suspension of indictment. The representative of TOO was accused of the charge to the prosecution for the same suspicion, but it was found that TO was actually operating TO, and that there was no evidence to deem that priorO was involved in the issuance of false tax invoices.

③ In the case of the E Development’s de facto operator, OO, etc. was convicted of having received false purchase tax invoices in the Incheon District Court’s Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court in the case of 000 Gohap00,000, 000 Gohap00 (Joint). The FF Energy Representative O also issued false sales tax invoices to the customer while operating the said company, which was convicted of the Suwon District Court in the case of Suyang Branch of the Suwon District Court in the case of 00 Gohap00, 000, 00 (Joint), and 00 (Joint).

Each of the tax invoices of this case is reasonable to deem that the supplier's false tax invoices constitute false tax invoices.

2) Whether the plaintiffs are parties to the transaction with good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was not aware of the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, whether the plaintiffs were negligent in not knowing the fact that each of the tax invoices of this case was nominal and did not know such fact, it is insufficient to recognize the facts alone, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 4 through 19, and evidence Nos. 4 through 19, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the witness KimO's testimony, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs were aware that the actual counterparty of the transaction is not a business partner of the instant case, or was negligent in not knowing it at least.

① Since complicated supply structure of the oil industry and non-material transactions using tax-free oil have emerged as a social problem since before the times, it is necessary for the oil supplier to pay special attention to whether the oil supplier is a actual supplier. Moreover, in light of the Plaintiffs’ past experience, etc., in light of the normal structure and distribution channel of the oil supply, general transaction behavior or method of the industry, and the fact that the oil industry widely spreads to the oil industry and the risk of such transactions.

② The Plaintiffs were supplied with oil at a price below 40 won to 50 won per liter than the resolution supplied by the business parties of this case. The Plaintiffs’ shipment slips issued at the time of the supply of oil from each of the business parties of this case are deemed to have considerably different entries such as the type of the shipment slips that are normally issued by the oil refinery and the date, time, temperature, density, etc. of the shipment slips, and there are cases where the order sheet or delivery place is not the oil station of this case. Thus, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have sufficient circumstances to suspect that each of the business parties of this case is not the actual supplier.

③ The Plaintiffs traded with each of the instant transaction partners through KimO, an employee of the company called GG, and KimO issued all of the purchase tax invoices of each of the instant transaction partners. As such, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs, while having transacted with each of the instant transaction partners through one petroleum seller, did not conduct on-site verification or telephone verification on the actual business status of the relevant company.

④ The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, permission certificate, etc. of each business partner of this case was confirmed and remitted to the corporate account, and that the Plaintiff constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence, and the business registration certificate was delivered to the head of the competent district tax office by requiring the business operator to apply for registration to the head of the competent district tax office in order to identify persons liable to pay value-added tax and secure taxation data, and it is merely a certificate proving the registration of business fact and does not prove that the Plaintiff satisfies the qualification or requirement to conduct business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Since the copy of the passbook was designated as an account to be deposited, it is difficult to find that each business partner of this case did not know that the Plaintiffs did not actually supply oil differently from the contents of each tax invoice

3. Conclusion

The detailed statement of Plaintiff OO's each global income and the claim for revocation of the disposition are unlawful. Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.