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

A. The plaintiff was issued a tax invoice (hereinafter "the tax invoice in this case") equivalent to 00 won in total from "CC Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "CC Energy") and from "EE Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "EE Energy"), with the trade name of "BB gas station", from 206 to 2008, and deducted the input tax amount in this case from the relevant output tax amount in 2006 - 2008 - 0 - 0 0 - 20 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 0 - 0 0 - 2 0 - 10 - 0 0 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 -

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on October 4, 201, but was dismissed on April 17, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6, and Eul evidence 1 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff actually purchased oil fromCC Energy, etc. and received the instant tax invoice, and thus, it does not constitute a false tax invoice. Even if the instant tax invoice is false, the Plaintiff constitutes a party acting in good faith, since the Plaintiff completed necessary confirmation and evidence expenses for a normal transaction. Therefore, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice is unlawful (contribute 1).

2) The Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not receive sufficient opportunity to vindicate relevant to the instant disposition, and the instant tax invoice received a decision to adopt a pre-assessment review request in 2009, and thus, it is unlawful to conduct a re-assessment and taxation (in dispute 2).

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff received a decision to adopt a pre-assessment review request from each Defendant on November 12, 2009 with respect to the portion received fromCC energy, and EE energy in the instant tax invoice on April 14, 2009, and from EE energy.

2) On January 26, 2011, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of China purchased oil from PP energy, etc., and received a false tax invoice from the Director of the Provincial Police Agency of Gyeonggi-do to request cooperation (request for accusation) with respect to the plaintiff and the non-party to thisG, and the public notice of the request for cooperation stated that "the plaintiff was aware that the plaintiff was oil without material, and received a false tax invoice from PP energy, etc., and the above 1) revocation of taxation was confirmed to be due to the submission of false evidence and false statement by the Commissioner of the Provincial Police Agency of Gyeonggi-do."

3) On September 2007, Kim II, who had been employed as the CC Energy and EE Energy Representative, issued a tax invoice only on the condition that “BB oil station did not have any actual oil transaction with the CC gas station,” but only the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting the fee per vehicle from the amount deposited into the CC Energy account in the CC gas station, and that the remaining amount would be supplied in cash to HaH, from among the amount deposited into the CC energy account in the CC gas station. At the time of the operation of the CC energy, telephone communications was made more than 2-3 times to the effect that the Plaintiff would cause the Plaintiff to supply oil at low supply by causing the sale of non-data.” The “sale and acquisition certificate of the CC energy” was made by the Plaintiff as a witness at the time of the past tax investigation, and the Plaintiff’s direct submission of the CC energy report was made by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was excluded from the Plaintiff’s request for appeal.”

4) Kim Jong-seok, who had been employed as the representative of DD energy and EE Energy, stated that “at the time of the police investigation, there was no direct sale of oil to the Plaintiff, and this H entered into a contract on the condition that it would charge KRW 000 per vehicle for the lending of the name of the producer.”

5) From August 10, 2006 at the time of the police investigation, this H, the actual supplier of non-data oil, had started trading in the name ofCC energy, had no record of presenting the business registration certificate ofCC energy before the first transaction, and had transmitted the copy of the business registration certificate upon the Plaintiff’s request. Around September 2007, the time when the investigation of the previous regional tax office was commenced by the secondary regional tax office, this state to the effect that, at the time of the investigation of the secondary regional tax office, the Plaintiff offered to the K KG and this H and Kim II directly traded by the Plaintiff and Kim II after deducting this H from the gathering of these GG and this H and the continuous supply of non-data and then transmitted the name of the tax invoice to the Plaintiff by changing it into the only energy and EE energy.

6) According to the current status of oil and inventory found at the Plaintiff’s workplace at the time of the tax investigation conducted on March 10, 201 (the transaction portion on May 2006 - December 2007), and oil traded with H was stored and treated in the name of H individual instead ofCC energy, which is not the tax invoice issuing place (the trade name of all other companies) and the oil shipment table (the similar shipment slip) supplied by H, which was entered by H, entered into the oil shipment table (the similar shipment slip), which is not BB oil station, the Plaintiff’s workplace, but the oil oil arrival price was entered into Chungcheong west, west, Gangwon, Gangwon, etc.

7) At the time of the tax investigation on May 16, 201, the Plaintiff’s spouse: “CC energy, D Energy, and EE Energy” issued a written order for oil in writing, or did not confirm or not receive the shipment slip when the delivery was made. At the time of the transaction, the Plaintiff’s spouse confirmed only the name and telephone number of the corporation’s address (or the Government Dong in the city of Gu) on the name of the director of the said corporation at the time of the transaction and the tax invoice (or the first half of the city of Gu, the first half of the city), and confirmed the need to confirm different from the address on the business registration certificate and the tax invoice (or the first half of the city, the first half of the city, the first half of the city, the second half of the year, the first half of the year, the first half of the year, and the first half of the year, the first half of the year, and the first half of the year, the Plaintiff was the agent’s personal name, and the first half of the year, the tax invoice was supplied.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 2 to 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Determination on key issues 1

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. In this case, the meaning that it is different from the fact that the actual owner of a tax invoice is the owner of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation, and if there is a person to whom it actually belongs, the actual owner shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purpose of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the actual owner of the tax invoice shall be liable for tax payment, and that the details of the entry in the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual owner of the goods or service or the price and time of the transaction, regardless of the formal contents of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties concerned with the goods or service (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). A tax invoice different from the actual supplier’s tax invoice should be determined by the supplier’s failure to know the actual owner’s name, and the supplier’s failure to know the fact that the actual supplier was not aware of the actual owner’s name or service.

B) In the instant case:

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff did not have been supplied with the actual oil fromCC energy, etc., which is the purchaser under the instant tax invoice; and (b) the said companies issued a false tax invoice for the purpose of paying fees (as to the part of the instant tax invoice for the first period of January 2007 and the second period of February 2007-2008, there was a criminal prosecution on the charge of receiving false tax invoices for the second period of February 2007, but criminal and tax administration dispositions vary from the above facts alone, but there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff did not know the above facts, and that there was no other evidence to prove that there was no other evidence to prove that there was any negligence in the Plaintiff’s presentation of the said tax invoice for the second period of February 2006 and one year of 207.

2) Determination on key issues 2

In light of the above investigation cooperation request and reinspection process, the investigation for the disposition of this case seems to fall under the same item of taxation and the same taxable period because there is clear evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of tax evasion under Article 81-4 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and this GG, which actually managed the BB oil station, was also an opportunity for the private citizen of the KKL to make sufficient vindication to attend the investigating agency along with the LL with the other private citizen of the BB oil station, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion against this.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.