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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the second term portion of the year 2008 against the Plaintiff, the first term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2009, the second term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2009, the first term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2009, the first term portion of the value-added tax for the year 2010, the corporate tax for the business year 2008, the corporate tax for the business year 209, and the corporate tax for the business year 2010.

A. From May 9, 2008, the Plaintiff is a corporation that runs an OO-dong 302-6 gas station business.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice from BB Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B Energy”), No. 208, No. 1, 2009, and No. 1, 2009, and No. 1, 2010 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”), and reported and paid value-added tax including the input tax amount subject to deduction. (c) The Defendant denied the input tax deduction on July 1, 2012 by deeming that the instant tax invoice is a processing tax invoice, and received a decision to dismiss the input tax amount for the second period of value-added tax in 2008 under Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act, for the first period of 1, 2009, for the second period of value-added tax in 209, for the second period of value-added tax in 2009, for the first period of value-added tax in 1, 2009, for the first period of value-added tax in 200, for each business year of 2000O or 208.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was supplied with the actual oil from BB energy and received the instant tax invoice, and the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Even if the actual supplier of oil is not BB energy, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and there was no negligence in not knowing that 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) If a taxpayer liable to pay value-added tax proves that a tax invoice submitted 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 the taxpayer is considerably false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and documentary evidence, should prove that it was actually traded with a supplier listed in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

In addition, a tax invoice shall be issued by an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed to be a person who actually receives goods or services or who actually performs transactions of supplying goods or services to a supplier rather than a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

(B) According to the evidence and evidence set forth above in the Evidence Nos. 5 through 8 of the Central Tax Office, the oil of the tax invoice of this case was supplied from CCP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCP”) to BB energy and BB energy on the document basis. CCP verified that all the sales tax invoices were processed without real transaction, and filed a complaint by the party concerned. BB energy was confirmed as data without any oil storage facilities or transportation equipment, and its customer or destination cannot be found in the oil shipment of the tax invoice of this case. Further, since the oil supplier's representative director of BB energy at the time of the tax investigation of BB energy, it cannot be seen as having been supplied with BB energy in the circumstance that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff was actually supplied with BB tax invoice of this case because it is difficult to find the party or destination as the oil supplier of the tax invoice of this case.

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) According to the evidence and evidence as mentioned above and evidence Eul evidence No. 4, the pre-delivery table received by the plaintiff after being supplied with the oil was not indicated with the temperature, density, and weight of the oil, and the issuer of the above pre-shipment list was stated BB energy. Thus, the following facts revealed according to the above recognition are social problems: ① the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and the free data transactions are frequent. Thus, if the oil supplier is an oil station operator, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier. ② The plaintiff is a person operating the oil station, ② the normal supply structure and distribution route of the oil, the general form and method of the oil industry, and the distribution industry are likely to have been well aware of the actual situation of the transaction, and ③ the quantity of the oil released when the oil was supplied with the oil, and ③ the Plaintiff did not have any significant reason to believe that the temperature of the oil was issued by the Plaintiff without any specific reason, and thus, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been negligent in the issuance of the B pre-shipment list.

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.