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

A. From December 1, 2007, the Plaintiff is an entrepreneur operating a gas station under the trade name, " from 00-5 to 000-5 to 200, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si." The Plaintiff issued a purchase tax invoice amounting to KRW 85,036,363 (hereinafter "the instant tax invoice") from ○○○○○ (the trade name at the time was PTR Korea; hereinafter "○○○○○○○○○○○○") during the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, and imposed and pays the value-added tax on the Defendant by deducting the purchase tax amount. The Defendant deducted the value-added tax amount on the ground that the instant tax invoice was written differently on January 4, 2010 and imposed the value-added tax amount on the Plaintiff.

D. On April 12, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request on June 29 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1 to 4, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff ordered oil in ○○○○○○○○○○ was actually supplied with oil at the storage place designated by ○○○○○○○○○○, and paid the price after being supplied with it, the Plaintiff was engaged in actual transactions, not in disguised transactions with ○○○○○○○○○○

2) Even if the transaction between the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○○ Operation constituted a disguised transaction, the Plaintiff was offered to supply oil at low prices to the country II, the representative of the ○○○○ Operation, and was engaged in the transaction upon receipt of a proposal to sell oil at low prices. Since all measures were taken to confirm whether the reasons for the ○○○○ Operation were actually supplied, such as supplying oil at the storage place designated by the Plaintiff through the transporter and remitting the price after receipt of the tax invoice, the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c)a recognition;

1) The circumstances leading to the confirmation of the data of ○○○ Operation

A) On July 25, 2007, 000, ○○○○○ Operation closed business on March 13, 2009 after filing a business registration, and filed a report on oil storage facilities and transportation vehicles with the registration of a petroleum selling business. However, only written an oil storage facility and transportation vehicle lease agreement with △△△, a stock company, an oil distribution company, and an oil storage facility and transportation vehicle lease agreement, but not actually leased and used it, and 00-2, Nam-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City, a place of business, did not use it in a closed door.

B) During the first taxable period of 2008, 008, ○○○○○○ was reported to have purchased KRW 309,181,819 (100% of the total purchase amount) from △ Energy Co., Ltd., but the said purchaser was proved to have been a processed transaction, and thus accused of the fact that the total purchase amount was verified to have been processed, and this was charged on the data. On December 17, 2010, ○○○○○○ was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution (the above case was sentenced to the punishment of 2009Gohap29,229).

C) As a result of the tax investigation on ○○○○○ Operation, the EE, an actual operator of the ○○○○ Operation, was found to have received an order for oil without oil storage facilities or transport vehicles and provided oil to the oil-free business operators, and then arbitrarily prepared a shipment slip after the transaction date and issued it to the sales office with the tax invoice. Upon receipt of the oil payment, the EE was investigated to have immediately withdrawn the money in cash or distributed the money to a large number of bank accounts so that it could not trace the oil-free business operators, and then withdrawn and delivered the money in cash.

D) Around June 2009, the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea confirmed ○○○○○○○ was on the data that issued false tax invoices without real transaction (in the case of accusation against the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the National EE and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on October 30, 2009, the director of the tax office notified the Defendant of the taxation data to take a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds of lack of evidence evidence, on the basis of the transaction passbook and the letter of postal statement at the sales and purchase office).

2) The details of the transaction between the Plaintiff and the ○○○ Operation

A) On November 23, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the term of lease from AA Petroleum Co., Ltd. as of November 30, 2007 by setting the term of lease to November 30, 2007; (b) purchased all of the sales volume from the above company; and (c) purchased at least 1,300 dums (260,000 dums) for each month; and (d) concluded a contract with the above company to terminate the contract and pay a penalty of KRW 50,00,000 for each month; and (e) concluded a contract with the above company to pay a penalty of KRW 1,30,000 for each month; and (e) when sales have been rapidly reduced due to the price reduction of the nearby gas station, the Plaintiff commenced transactions with the EE, the operator of ○○○ (operator) to supply oil at a low price of KRW 40-50 per liter.

B) After receiving oil from a vehicle operated by KimM as designated by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff traded by receiving a transaction statement, tax invoice, and shipment slip from ○○○○○○○○○○○, and transferring the oil price to the bank account.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, the evidence set forth above, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Gap evidence No. 6-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 2 through 7, Eul evidence No. 8-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 47, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

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

A) Article 17(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from output tax if the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In such a case, the meaning is different from the fact. In a case where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is merely nominal and there is another person to whom such income, profit, act or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, etc., belongs, shall be liable for tax payment, and the purpose of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is to stipulate that the necessary entries of a tax invoice are not consistent with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the transaction regarding the goods or service, regardless of the formal descriptions of the goods or service, and that the other party to the transaction actually supplies the goods or service to the extent that the tax authority bears the burden of proof as to the amount of tax payment, such as a taxpayer’s tax invoice or service (see, etc.).

B) We examine the issue of whether the customer who supplied oil to the Plaintiff is the supplier of the tax invoice. As seen above, since ○○○○○○○○○○○, which the Plaintiff claimed as the customer to whom the oil was supplied, was found to be the data on the purchase price in the first taxable period of 2008, the purchase price of the report is also processed transaction. It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff actually supplied his oil to the Plaintiff in the absence of the oil purchased at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was not the supplier of the tax invoice. Considering the above, the Plaintiff’s oil purchase price in the tax invoice in the instant case should be deemed to be a third party, not the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is the supplier of the oil on the tax invoice. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s purchase price in the instant tax invoice did not constitute a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that there was no evidence proving the non-prosecution disposition on the ground that the Defendant did not have any counter to the above sales statement on the grounds.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide trader

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not aware of the disguised name of the tax invoice and that there is no negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 200

“B) The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from ○○○○○○○ and remitted the amount stated in the said tax invoice to ○○○○○○○. However, as seen earlier, the following circumstances revealed by the above recognized facts, i.e., the date of shipment when oil was shipped out:

not withdrawn.

(4) Since it is difficult to view that ○○○○○○○○○○○ number of oil suppliers did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff had been actually engaged in the sale of the oil at the time of delivery, the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct an investigation into the actual supply of the oil at the time of delivery of the oil at the time of delivery cannot be seen as having known of the fact that ○○○○○○○ number of oil suppliers did not actually engaged in the sale of the oil at the time of delivery. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct an investigation into the actual supply of the oil at the time of delivery of the oil at the time of delivery, the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the fact that ○○○○○○ number of oil suppliers did not actually engage in the sale of the oil at the time of delivery of the oil at the time of delivery. As such, the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct an investigation into the actual supply of the oil at the time of delivery of the oil at the time of delivery of the oil at the time of delivery of the oil at the time of delivery of the oil at its own price.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.