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

Cheong-gu Office

On April 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the value-added tax of the first OOO in 2009 against the Plaintiff.

A. From November 28, 1998 to March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff operated the gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) under the trade name “BB gas station” from OO-dong 475-4 from OO to O-dong 475-4.

B. In 209, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of the supply value OOOO (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from CCC Energy Seoul Gangnam Branch (hereinafter “the instant transaction party”), and reported the value of supply, including the input tax subject to deduction, in addition to the input tax amount.

C. On April 1, 2012, the Defendant denied the input tax deduction by deeming the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact, and issued the Plaintiff a notice of correction and notification of the KRW OO of the value-added tax base for the first time in 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 11, 2012, but was dismissed on December 13, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the instant transaction party and received the instant tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and even if the actual supplier of domestic oil is not a transaction party, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and was not aware of such fact, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) The fact 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 thus, the tax office’s substantial proof of whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer is considerably false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the actual transaction with a supplier stated in the tax invoice, need to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

In addition, a person who is obliged to issue a tax invoice to an entrepreneur who is supplied with goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act shall be deemed not to form a nominal legal relationship with the entrepreneur who is supplied with the goods or services, but to have actually performed the transaction of supplying the goods or services to the entrepreneur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

B) Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 2 and 3, oil of the instant tax invoice is supplied by the instant transaction party and the Plaintiff at the Seoul Energy Gyeonggi Branch Co., Ltd. on the documents, the CCC Seoul District Office opened business on December 8, 2008, and closed its business ex officio on September 30, 2009. The Seoul Regional Tax Office’s findings revealed that the amount of 9.8% of the initial tax return on September 1, 2009 and 10% of the initial tax invoice was confirmed as the processing transaction. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the Plaintiff purchased the instant goods or services from the Plaintiff’s business entity on the documents attached to the petroleum sales registration, and that the Plaintiff did not actually receive the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff’s business entity on the date of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the goods or services on January 19, 2009, and that the Plaintiff did not receive the instant tax invoice from the Plaintiff’s business entity on the date of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the goods or services on February 28, 10, 2000.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice either knew the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the said name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277,

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, and 8, the plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate, petroleum sales certificate, corporate passbook, and KimE's name at the time of the transaction with the transaction with the transaction partner of this case. The plaintiff issued the tax invoice of this case from the transaction partner of this case and remitted the corresponding amount to the corporate account of the transaction partner of this case, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff prepared a document confirming the fact that the plaintiff was a transaction with the plaintiff related to the tax invoice of this case, but the above facts alone did not know that the actual supplier of oil was not the transaction partner of this case, and did not know that the plaintiff was not the actual transaction partner of this case.

Rather, according to the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 4 and Eul evidence No. 4, the plaintiff received oil from the business partners of this case, and there is no column for entry of the density, sulfur content, time of publication, etc. unlike the shipping slips issued by statics. Thus, it is social problem that ① the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and the free data transactions are frequent. Thus, if the oil supplier of this case is an oil station, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier or not, ② the plaintiff has operated an oil wholesale and retail business for about 19 years since 198, because the plaintiff was not aware of the normal structure and the distribution route of the oil supply industry through various experiences, the general transaction type and method of the oil distribution industry, and the fact that the plaintiff did not know of the risks of the sale of the oil in this case to the plaintiff's business partners of this case, and ③ the plaintiff's oil temperature did not change from the normal distribution density of the oil in the supply of the oil in this case to the plaintiff's business partners of this case.

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.