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

A. The Plaintiff is a business entity engaging in wholesale and retail business with the trade name "GG energy" from OOl 000 on the authenticity of Pyeongtaek-si. The Plaintiff, from August 2, 2007 to October 2, 2008, received a purchase tax invoice for the pertinent taxable period from 000 won (2.00 won for February 2007 + 000 won for February 2008 + 000 won for February 2008) by deducting the input tax amount under the said tax invoice, and filed a value-added tax return for the pertinent taxable period with the Defendant by deducting the input tax amount under the said tax invoice.

B. However, on March 2, 2011, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s deduction of the relevant input tax amount on the grounds that the said tax invoice received from the Nonparty Company is a tax invoice with a false content, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 271 minutes in 2007, value-added tax for 1 year 2008, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for 2 year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 30, 201.

The above claim was dismissed.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 1 to 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Since September 12, 2007, the Plaintiff was supplied with mith oil in fact by the Nonparty Company and was normally supplied with purchase tax invoices pursuant to this, and the Plaintiff’s tax invoices issued from September 12, 2007 to October 2, 2008 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) out of the total tax invoices issued by the Nonparty Company do not constitute a tax invoice different from the facts. ② Even if not, the Plaintiff was supplied with mith oil without knowing that the Plaintiff was a disguised business operator at the time of purchase of mith oil, and thus, the Plaintiff was supplied with mith oil without knowing that mith oil was a disguised business operator, and the disposition of the Defendant by the Defendant was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false or not

(A) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides 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. Here, the meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts, and where there is a person to whom the entries of a tax invoice belong only belongs, and where there is another person to whom the entries of a tax invoice belong, the person to whom the entries are in fact belong shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the tax law shall apply to the person to whom the entries of a tax invoice are to whom the necessary entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or services are actually supplied or supplied, and the price and time of the transaction, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see,

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s tax invoices were entered in the Plaintiff’s 2 through 6, and the Plaintiff’s 17, and part of the tax invoices were entered in the Plaintiff’s 18 (including the serial number) with the overall purport of the pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s 2.1% of the input tax invoices received in the process of oil trade, 59.5% from February 2007 to February 2008 (207: 1: 71%, 71%, 208, and 509.1%, and 208.1%, 207, 207, 208, 208, 208, 208, 30.1%, and 1%, and 509.1%, and 208, 208, 208, 30.27, 208, 208, 20.7.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff’s bona fide and without fault is recognized

(A) Unless there is any special reason that the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice have been able to deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier did not know of the name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

(B) Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal name of each of the tax invoices in this case, and was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence, and part of the entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 16 (including household numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 17 and 18 (including household numbers), as well as witness Kim Jong-soo's testimony alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, each part of the tax invoices Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and evidence Nos. 17, and 18 (including household numbers) are acknowledged by the overall purport of each of the tax invoices and arguments, i.e.,, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice Nos. 3 and 17, and the above tax invoice Nos. 18 (including household numbers) were known to the Plaintiff from May 19, 200 to the point that the Plaintiff was aware of the normal structure and tax route of supply of the oil industry, and the above tax invoice No.

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.