2. The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 526,595,30 on December 8, 2014 against the Plaintiff on December 8, 2014, which exceeds 451,038,940, shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s revocation of the part exceeding KRW 40,230,90 of the value-added tax of KRW 610,162,810 (including additional tax) for KRW 40,230,90 for the first period of value-added tax of KRW 10,162,810 for the Plaintiff on December 8, 2014, and the part exceeding KRW 119,272,70 for the second period of value-added tax of KRW 244,437,520 for the second year

A. The Plaintiff, a company established on March 13, 1989 for the purpose of running the business of selling petroleum and petroleum products, has its head office in 000-000-00-00-00-2, and has three gas stations in 000-000-000-000-0000-000-000.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice from BBBB, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) as listed below, and reported and paid the value-added tax to the Defendant.

C. From July 8, 2014 to October 16, 2014, the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant tax investigation”), deeming that the tax invoice issued by the transaction parties as indicated in the table supplier is a tax invoice different from the fact that the tax invoice was issued without real transactions, and accordingly, deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data that applied for an erroneous tax payment, additional tax payment, additional tax, and unfair under-reported additional tax.

D. On December 8, 2014, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of the total of KRW 610,162,810, and KRW 244,437,520, and KRW 854,60,330 (including additional taxes) of value-added tax for the first period of value-added tax in 2010.

E. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal. On February 3, 2017, the Director of the Tax Tribunal decided that the Plaintiff’s input tax amount related to the total value of 1,595,036,000 won purchased fromCC should be deducted from the output tax amount, and that the remainder of the appeal is dismissed.

F. According to the determination by the Director of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant re-revision and notified the amount of tax assessed at KRW 83,567,510 for the first period of value-added tax for 2010, and re-revision and notified the amount of tax assessed at KRW 244,437,520 for the second period of value-added tax for 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit exceeding KRW 526,595,300 among the disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 610,162,810 in 2010 and the part seeking revocation exceeding KRW 119,272,70 in the disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 244,437,520 in 2010 is legitimate

ex officio, the part of the instant lawsuit exceeding 526,595,300 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 610,162,810 for the first year of 2010 and the part of each claim for revocation exceeding 119,272,70 won among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 244,437,520 for the second year of 2010 are examined.

When an administrative disposition is revoked, such disposition shall lose its validity and no longer exists, and a revocation lawsuit against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du16879, Apr. 29, 2010).

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant re-revisiond the amount of KRW 83,567,510 out of KRW 610,162,810 of the value-added tax for 1 year 2010 as determined by the Director of the Tax Tribunal, and then notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 244,437,520 of the value-added tax for 2 year 2010. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of KRW 83,567,510 of the value-added tax for 1 year 2010 and the disposition of imposition of KRW 24,437,520 of the value-added tax for 2010 (including additional tax) was revoked ex officio on the part of the value-added tax for 83,567,510 of the value-added tax for 1 year 2010 and the revocation of the disposition without the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds as follows.

1) The Plaintiff was actually supplied by BBB, DD, EE (hereinafter “E”) with oil, and was normally traded by issuing a tax invoice, etc., the tax invoice issued by each of the instant transaction parties (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) is not a false tax invoice. However, the Defendant did not grasp whether there was a transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice based on whether there was a transaction corresponding to the instant tax invoice, but simply identified the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice without specific verification on the basis of the fact that each of the instant transaction parties in collusion with other companies that are not the Plaintiff, and thereby, did not constitute a false tax invoice. Furthermore, BBBB was issued a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice) premised on the fact that the investigation agency was a data, and at least the portion of the tax invoice issued by BBBB is not a false tax invoice.

2) The Plaintiff, while actually trading oil with each of the instant transaction parties, was issued the instant tax invoice, and took additional measures to confirm that the oil supplied is not fake oil. Therefore, even if the instant tax invoice is different from the fact, the Plaintiff was not aware of it.

3) Preliminaryly, even if the instant tax invoice was tax invoice different from the fact, the imposition of additional tax should be subject to the general underreporting rate, not the unfair underreporting tax rate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

In light of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 7 through 12, and evidence Nos. 5 through 21, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) Progress of the relevant case

A) From July 23, 2010 to November 9, 2010, the Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff’s transaction portion in 2008 and 2009 (hereinafter “the previous tax investigation”). It was confirmed that the tax invoice received from the transaction parties, including BBBB1, etc. (hereinafter “former transaction parties”) who were investigated as data from the Plaintiff was a false tax invoice and notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation. Accordingly, on December 1, 2010, the Defendant deducted the input tax amount pursuant to the said tax invoice from the input tax amount pursuant to the said tax invoice to the Plaintiff, and then corrected and notified each corporate tax for the business year 208 and 208 and 2009 (hereinafter “former disposition”).

B) On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous disposition of this case, and made a normal transaction by issuing a tax invoice while paying the price by actually supplying oil from the previous transaction partners of this case. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no negligence on the part of the previous transaction partners of this case, but did not know that the previous transaction partners of this case were data merchants. However, on October 23, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the dismissal ruling (Seoul District Court 2012Guhap1398) and was sentenced to the dismissal ruling on February 13, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2013Nu1735), and the above ruling became final and conclusive around that time.

C) On January 18, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s representative director Aa were convicted (the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 45 million, aa: 3 years of suspended execution on June 201) of the conviction (the period of suspended execution on the grounds that the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 45 million, and aa: 3 years of suspended execution on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s appeal (the Daejeon District Court 2012No242) and the appeal (the Supreme Court 2012Do1537) were all dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 13, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “related criminal cases”).

1. Defendant Aaa

The defendant, who is engaged in the oil supply-related business for a period of 40 years, was well aware of the oil distribution system, whose identity is unclear, and was supplied with oil at least 50 won per liter than the oil refining company through the "disdler (redler)", was able to prepare and submit a list of total tax invoices based on the tax invoice issued by the "data on the one-person's name" in order to file a tax return after being supplied with oil for 40 years, even though he is well aware that the oil is supplied through illegal distribution processes, such as tax evasion, not normal distribution channels, even though he is well aware that the oil is supplied through illegal distribution processes.

On April 24, 2008, the Defendant submitted a false list of total tax invoices for 93,636,363 won from an agency whose trade name is unknown, which is equivalent to 17,818,182 won from the TFF, 253,636,364 won from the TF, 312,00,000,020 won from well-known energy, and 73,090,90,909 won from the Spain, as if he were to receive oil from an agency whose trade name is unknown.

In addition, from around that time to January 23, 2010, the Defendant submitted a list of total tax invoices (total supply value of KRW 7,863,047,281) stating false information without being being supplied goods or services over eight times in total for profit-making purposes, such as the list of crimes in the attached list.

2. The plaintiff;

At the date and place specified in Paragraph 1, Aa, the representative of the Plaintiff, submitted a false list of total tax invoices (total supply value of KRW 7,863,047,281) prepared in total eight times as above with respect to the Plaintiff’s business.

D) The Plaintiff and Aa were investigated by an investigative agency on the following charges with respect to the facts constituting the cause of the instant disposition. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff and Aa were subject to a disposition of suspending indictment, and the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution (a) and a disposition of suspending indictment (c) to the effect that the Plaintiff was not entitled to institute a prosecution due to the lapse of the statute of limitations.

1. Suspect Aaa

From April 26, 2010 to October 23, 2010 of the same year, when filing a return of value-added tax with the Plaintiff on the budget tax account book from April 26, 2010 to the date of filing a false list of total tax invoices equivalent to KRW 4,113,581,82, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table for profit-making purposes, and submitting a false list of total tax invoices by submitting

2. The plaintiff;

A. On April 26, 2010, aa, the representative of the Plaintiff, filed a preliminary return of value-added tax on the budget tax account book with respect to the Plaintiff on January 2010, 2010, and submitted a false list of total tax invoices for purchase punishment stating that the Plaintiff was provided with oil equivalent to KRW 683,90,089,089, and KRW 630,727,273 from DD, thereby violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

B. On July 24, 2010, aaa, the representative of the Plaintiff, filed a final tax return on the budget tax secretary with the Plaintiff for the first year of 2010 on the budgetary tax secretary, and filed a false list of total tax invoices by submitting a list of total tax invoices to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff received oil equivalent to KRW 873,181,821 from BBB; (b) the amount equivalent to KRW 402,309.091 fromCC; and (c) the amount equivalent to KRW 330,727,27,273 from EE;

C. On October 23, 2010, aa, the representative of the Plaintiff, filed a preliminary return of value-added tax on the budget tax secretary with respect to the Plaintiff on February 2010, 2010, and submitted a false list of total tax invoices by submitting a false list of total tax invoices as if he/she were supplied with oil equivalent to KRW 1,192,727,275 fromCC.

2) Contents of the statement of the persons concerned

A) On November 27, 2010, at the time of the previous tax investigation of this case, aa states the following:

(E) The reason why the transaction is conducted in trust without any particular verification is what is the reason why (a) it is difficult to believe that the original shipment slips issued by the four similar vehicles and the name of the business party and the destination of the shipment slips partially stored by the Plaintiff are different from the place of destination of the shipment slips issued by the Plaintiff.

The answer) It is not nothing more than the transaction with the belief of the introduction, but it is true that each agency's head office, tax office, and relevant administrative office confirm, and if the necessary documents are completely completed, the oil industry is no superior because the normal agency is certain even if the destination of the shipment slip is different, and if only the tax invoice is issued normally, it is not superior. For example, even though the destination is the three-way gas station, the sales can be sold to the general agency at the tax station.

m) If the place of destination of the shipment slip similar to the fixed oil is the place of destination, the tax invoice is issued in the fixed oil station, etc., and the Plaintiff is required to receive the purchase tax invoice from the small oil station, because the tax invoice is issued in the fixed oil station.

The answer is that, for example, if the place of destination is Sdozed, the oil is sold to Sdozed Station in the Sdozed Station, and the vehicles indicated in the vehicle number are changed to the plaintiff.

m) As a result, the Plaintiff confirmed the tax invoice for the volume to be flowed into the Sdo basin oil station, and as a result, it is required that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice from FFF (State), a general agent.

The answer) We are not superior to us, if you have confirmed only whether the oil is the oil of modern o Bank's refined oil, and if you have purchased from the FFFF (State), we have received a tax invoice from FFF (State) and the reason why the Promotion Company keeps the shipment slips (on the port oil, which is charged to the Sdomin oil station) issued by the Promotion Company, is only to keep in order to verify whether the oil supplied to us is the oil oil. This transaction is to be purchased from the FFF (State) by the Promotion Company or Domin oil station after the Promotion Company ships oil in modern oil, and then sold from the FFFF (State) at the Promotion Company or Domin oil station.

d) (See the difference between sampling data and the shipment slips issued by general agencies) The Plaintiff collected oil samples in order to secure whether the oil is refined or not.

If a general agency purchases oil in order to secure whether the goods are authentic, it is taking samples of oil.

(E) I think that it is necessary to verify the shipment slips when collecting samples and verify the authenticity of the shipment slips.

If it is confirmed that the oil shipped is the refined, we need not confirm the remaining matters. This is because the articles are less accurate to ask the article rather than to compare the shipment slips, because they trade in a short frame.

m) What is the reason why a transaction is conducted without any doubt even though the number of the vehicle actually entered (the vehicle number in which samples are collected) is inconsistent with the vehicle number in the shipping slip issued by general agencies.

The answer does not seem to be due to the fact that, from our standpoint, we do not have any further trust in the article, the vehicle number, etc. of the de facto shipping pre-shipment transport vehicle may be matched (which may be consistent and inconsistent).

(b) Aa makes the preceding statement on September 12, 2014 by which the following is stated:

(E) If there are different parts in the form of transaction, such as oil purchase and sale procedures, tax invoices, details of transactions, shipping slips, shipping confirmations, etc., conducted from July 8, 2014 for the business year from 2008 to 2009, which is the period subject to investigation, of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office’s investigation conducted in 2010, and the period of investigation conducted from July 8, 2014 for the business year belonging to 2010, the amount of liquor tax shall be

I have the same answer) D.

m) What is the shipment slips that are brought by drivers at the time of oil;

The answer) The first shipment slips issued by the oil refining and the shipment slips issued by the general agencies respectively, show and recover the shipment slips issued by the oil refining, and the shipment slips issued by the general agencies are given to the Plaintiff.

C) Aa asserts that bB, which transported oil to the Plaintiff, had a perjury in the relevant criminal case, filed a complaint for perjury on January 14, 2013, and on the same day, stated the following in the witness investigation:

m) How to be supplied with oil from bB by the Plaintiff

The answer) If the plaintiff requests the FFF, Sejong Puc, Greenls, Love Energy, Calop, etc., it is known that BB had the oil in its own vehicle and one copy of the pre-delivery Table 2, and the pre-delivery table issued by the FF, Cuc, Euck, Euck, and Cuc is in operation in the same kind, and the first order is the shipping pre-delivery slip. The above four agencies are formally permitted, but the actual representative is a non-legal representative and the tax is not paid entirely. In fact, BB and the above four agencies are aware that BB's cc is related to the above company, and in fact, Cccc is aware that it is in operation in the Chuncheon prison.

D) The entirety of the statements made on August 25, 2014 by the Plaintiff’s business management staff include the following:

(E) Of the parts listed in the shipment slip issued by staticly similar, the other parts are not identified.

In addition to the starting time and arrival time, I have confirmed only what kind of oil was shipped from a similar refinery, and the other parts have not been confirmed. The same applies to the part to be confirmed at present.

m) If the person who made the statement is entitled to the shipment prior to shipment check, it is required to confirm any part of the parts entered.

The shipment slips received at the time of oil purchase by a general agency shall be confirmed only on the shipment date, kind, quantity, vehicle number, and driver's name, and shall not be confirmed except in all other cases. However, the shipment slips issued at fixed names shall not identify only the shipment date, shipment time, type, quantity, vehicle number, and driver's name, and shall not verify any other matters.

E) During the investigation on October 14, 2010 and November 29, 2010, SDR representative director Lee Jae-soo received a processed purchase tax invoice without real property transaction. In order to conceal the issuance of the processed purchase tax invoice, the false shipment slips were issued in a lump sum at post, rather than the time of oil transport, and the actual shipment slip (it can be confirmed that the actual oil supplier can be confirmed) issued by the transporter was not issued at the gas station, etc., and the actual shipment slip (it is confirmed that the actual oil supplier can be confirmed) issued by the transporter was returned to the seller through the oil energy account in the processing purchasing place, or some of the payments deposited by the sale was returned to the seller, or it was confirmed that the funds was returned to the seller through the oil market account in the processing purchasing place, and that it was confirmed that the funds was returned to the buyer in cash, or that it was made through the process of money laundering in order to trace funds.

3) Status of each customer of the instant case

A) The location of each business partner of the instant case’s place of business is as listed below.

B) The details of each transaction party’s first tax invoice in 2010 are as listed below.

C) The purchaser of each business partner of the instant case constitutes the so-called data that is issued only by the tax invoice, and thus, the commissioner of the Central District Tax Office, etc. accused not only the respective business partner of the instant case but also the purchaser of each business partner of the instant case, pursuant to

D) The Plaintiff did not actually verify the place of business and storage facilities of each business partner of the instant case, and it was confirmed that DD did not have any operation of oil storage facilities.

E) The Plaintiff kept the shipment slips issued in the name of each business partner of the instant case, received a “written confirmation of the fact of transportation” from the driver, and collected samples among the oil supplied, and made the driver enter the specific fact of supply on the outer side. After the oil supply was made, the Plaintiff remitted the payment to the account in the name of each business partner of the instant case. The Plaintiff received a copy of the business registration certificate and the petroleum sales registration certificate from each business partner of the instant case

D. 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 the tax invoice is disputed. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier listed in a tax invoice claimed by a 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, 209).

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409, Dec. 27, 2010) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. The meaning that an entry in a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the facts. This refers to a case where the requisite entry of a tax invoice does not coincide with an actual supplier, the price, and the timing of the actual supplier, who supplied or supplied goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196)

B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire argument as to the above evidence, it is reasonable to view that the person who supplied oil listed in the tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff is a third party, not each of the transaction parties of this case. However, each of the transaction parties of this case provided necessary data, such as the tax invoice for real transactions between the Plaintiff and the third party. Therefore, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier entered differently, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part

(1) The Deputy Director of the District Tax Office, the Director of the District Tax Office, and the Director of the District Tax Office of Busan District Tax Office determined that each of the transaction parties of this case had delivered or received only a tax invoice by processing without real transaction, and they filed an accusation

(2) DDD has no oil storage facility, and BBB or EE also has human and material size or equipment corresponding to the transaction amount stated in the tax invoice of this case and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff actually stored and transported oil using the same. There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff did not confirm the business place or oil storage facility of each of the transaction parties of this case.

(3) The place of business or destination indicated in the oil distribution table of oil oil in the instant tax invoice was not the Plaintiff, each of the instant transaction parties, and each of the instant transaction parties, and there was no company that actually sold oil to the Plaintiff or each of the instant transaction parties among the transaction parties or destination parties.

(4) The normal shipment slip issued by oil refining company is the first unit of time when the volume of oil differs depending on temperature and density, and the temperature density is accurately stated. On the other hand, the shipment slip prepared in the name of each of the business parties of this case does not appear to be the result of the actual side because the whole or part of the tank number, temperature, weight, time of issuance, yellow content is not stated or uniformly stated, and it is not clear whether the oil was shipped out in any region. In addition, in light of the location of each business party of this case, the location of each business place of this case, and the oil pipeline location and distance, it is difficult to accept that the driver who transported oil to the Plaintiff delivered the shipment slip issued by each of the business parties of this case to the Plaintiff on the date of transport.

(5) At the time of the previous tax investigation, the Plaintiff was investigated only for the value-added tax in 2008 and 2009, and was subject to the previous disposition in this case. After the investigation, the Plaintiff was investigated about the value-added tax in 2010 at the time of the previous tax investigation, and was subjected to the disposition in this case. Since BBB had continued to engage in the same type of business before the commencement of the previous tax investigation in this case, and even BBB had continued to engage in transactions from 2009 to 2010, it cannot be deemed that there was a substantial difference in the above two periods. The Plaintiff was subject to the previous disposition in this case on the ground that the supplier entered the tax invoice differently with regard to the facts constituting the cause of the previous disposition in this case, and was

(6) Although BBB is deemed to have received a disposition of non-prosecution in a criminal case against a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice, etc.), the fact that the BB was suspected of having received a disposition of non-prosecution in connection with the instant case is not bound by the fact of non-prosecution, but can sufficiently recognize the facts opposed to the BB based on evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Nu493, Oct. 26, 198

(7) The Plaintiff purchased oil at a lower price than the market price from each of the instant business partners. However, even if horizontal transactions are permitted between oil sellers, it is difficult to accept that the Plaintiff’s purchase of oil at a lower price than the market price from each of the instant business partners would go against the distribution order of the Petroleum Business Act. The Plaintiff’s purchase of oil through an agency, etc. goes against the distribution order of the Petroleum Business Act. In the event of purchase of oil through an agency, etc., the amount of profit of the agency, etc. added to the oil price, and the increase in the unit price of oil would occur more than the direct purchase of oil from the oil from the oil refinery. In light of the volume of transactions and financial standing of each of the instant business parties, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s purchase of oil at a lower price than the market price from each of the instant business partners is supplied through the legitimate process from each of the instant business parties.

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

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the name of the actual supplier and that there is no negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice, 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 on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the said name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1

B) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff received tax invoices and shipment slips from each of the instant transaction parties, and actually received oil from each of the instant transaction parties, and deposited the price in the deposit account in the name of each of the instant transaction parties, and confirmed a business registration certificate, a petroleum sales registration certificate, etc. prior to the commencement of transaction with each of the instant transaction parties. However, it is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff was not negligent due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know that each of the instant transaction parties was merely an agent supplying oil, not an agent supplying oil, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances where the purport of the entire argument is acknowledged in the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to perform the ordinary duty of care required in the relevant industry even if each of the transaction parties at the time of issuance of the tax invoice of this case knew or did not know of the fact that each of the transaction parties at the time of issuance of the tax invoice of this case was not the actual supplier of oil. The Plaintiff’s assertion against this is without merit

(1) From 1989, the Plaintiff is a long-term business entity that runs the wholesale and retail business. Since the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and the transaction of non-data frequently takes place and its risks have become social problems since it has been a long-term business entity, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier.

(2) The Plaintiff was supplied with oil less than the normal oil price by each of the instant transaction partners. In the event of purchasing oil through an agency, etc. under the social norms, profit of the agency, etc. should be added to the oil price. Thus, it seems reasonable to doubt the distribution process of each of the instant transaction parties. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if considering the fact that the agency, etc. can actually purchase oil from the oil oil at a low level, the Plaintiff still has to pay a careful attention to the distribution process.

(3) The Plaintiff asserted that only oil shipped from static oil storage place, which is not an agent, was supplied. However, the place of arrival and arrival of the shipping slips issued by static oil was not the place of each of the instant transaction parties or each of the instant transaction parties, and there was sufficient circumstances to doubt whether each of the instant transaction parties, which is a supplier in the name of the instant tax invoice, was not the data of each of the instant transaction parties, among the order and destination businesses, and the company that actually sold oil to the Plaintiff or each of the instant transaction parties was not identified.

(4) The normal shipment slips issued by the oil refining company include the time of publication because the volume of oil differs depending on temperature and density, the temperature and density are accurately indicated, and the shipment price is indicated. The shipment slip received by the Plaintiff from each of the instant transaction parties is insufficient to state the above mentioned contents, the Plaintiff collected oil samples, and obtained the signature of the transport vehicle number and the transport engineer, and followed the verification process by receiving the transport confirmation document. However, such a method alone cannot be confirmed by the actual supplier for the relevant oil.

3) Whether the portion of the penalty tax for unlawful underreporting among the instant disposition is lawful

A) In light of the language, structure, etc. of relevant provisions under Article 47-3(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010); even if a taxpayer obtained a false certification and underreporting the tax base, the taxpayer cannot be deemed to fall under “in cases where a taxpayer underreporting the tax amount due for an unlawful act” if he/she did not know that there was a false certification, and it does not change because the taxpayer did not know that there was a false certification. In addition, in order for the taxpayer to fall under “in cases where he/she underreporting the tax amount due to an unlawful act stipulated in Article 47-3(2)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes,” such an act should be deemed to fall under “in cases where he/she underreporting the tax amount due to an unlawful act,” not only the taxpayer is aware that he/she was entitled to a deduction or refund of the tax amount due by a false tax invoice, but also the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of the tax amount under 15.

B) In light of the purport of the entire argument as to the instant case, it is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the oils listed in the instant tax invoice, and paid the oils listed in the instant tax invoice through the account of each of the instant transaction parties. Although the Plaintiff received a tax invoice different from the facts from each of the instant transaction parties, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is that the Plaintiff is different from the facts, and that each of the instant transaction parties was aware that the Plaintiff would result in a decrease in national tax revenues by evading the liability for value-added tax payment under the said tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the penalty tax for underreporting under Paragraph (1) should be imposed on the plaintiff, not the penalty tax for underreporting under Article 47-3 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. As such, the penalty tax for underreporting exceeds the amount of the penalty tax for underreporting under Article 47-3 (2).

(iv) a reasonable tax amount;

If a general under-reported penalty tax has been imposed, the reasonable amount of tax for the plaintiff shall be as stated in the following "justifiable amount of tax". Ultimately, the part of the imposition imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff in the amount exceeding KRW 451,038,940 among the imposition imposition of KRW 526,595,30 for the first term of 2010 against the plaintiff should be revoked.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit exceeding KRW 526,595,30 among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 610,162,810 for the first time in 2010 and the part of each claim for revocation in excess of KRW 119,272,70 for the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 244,437,520 for the second time in 2010 is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.