2. The plaintiff ParkB's claims and the plaintiff ParkB's remaining claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. From August 1, 2007 to 000, the Plaintiffs: (a) an entrepreneur operating a gas station (50% of the Plaintiff’s equity shares) under the trade name, “OOOOOO-dong 000, 000,” and filed a tax invoice in total amount of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tax invoice”) as indicated below with the input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount, and filed a tax return for global income tax for the period of value added tax from 1st to 2nd, 2008 to 2009; (b) during the VAT taxable period; (c) DD Energy Co., Ltd.; (d) EE Dog Global Energy Co., Ltd.; and (d) HH Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd. in the company name indication”); and (d) filed a tax return for the total amount of value-added tax paid from the output tax amount to be included in the global income tax amount for 2008 years.

B. On December 14, 2012, the Central Tax Office: (a) judged the instant tax invoice as a disguised tax invoice and notified the Defendant; (b) concluded that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice; and (c) concluded that the Defendant did not deduct the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount; and (b) imposed the Plaintiff, a joint and several taxpayer at a joint business place on the first quarter of 2008 (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) value-added tax for the second quarter of 2008, value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009, value-added tax for the second quarter of 2000, value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009, and value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009 (hereinafter “value-added tax imposition disposition”); and (d) imposed the Plaintiff’s tax amount for global income tax for 2008 and the local income tax for 20000, local income tax for 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tax imposition disposition”).

[Based on Recognition] The non-satched Facts, the evidence A through 3, the evidence 18, 26, and the evidence 1, 11 through 14 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio as to the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax of this case

Ex officio, we examine whether the part of the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax for the year 2008 among the lawsuits of the plaintiff ParkA is legitimate. According to Article 177-4 (1), (2), and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924 of Jan. 1, 2010, hereinafter referred to as the "Local Tax Act"), and resident tax (limited to the current local income tax under the Local Tax Act) to be paid to the head of the Si/Gun (the head of the Gu in the case of the Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, and the head of the tax office, the same shall apply hereinafter) having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax, and if the head of the tax office collects income tax by the method of assessment, determination, etc. under the Framework Act on National Tax or the Income Tax Act, it is deemed that the head of the Si/Gun concerned should be deemed that income tax should be imposed and notified together, and thus, the appeal for revocation of imposition of local income tax should be made against the plaintiff Park.

3. Whether the imposition of value-added tax and the imposition of global income tax are legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) Claims on the imposition of value-added tax of this case

For the following reasons, the instant imposition of value-added tax is unlawful.

A) The so-called spot oil agency of this case purchased oil from other agencies or gas stations that are not similar to oil, and supplied it to the plaintiffs in a horizontal transaction manner, and the plaintiffs did not accurately reflect the actual transaction process of oil, even though the plaintiffs ordered oil to the customers of this case and paid the price after receiving the oil through the transfer of the right to claim the return of the object in accordance with the order, and the supplier of the oil to the plaintiffs, and the parties of this case are the customers of this case, and as long as the plaintiffs did not know of such internal relationship, the supplier of this case issued to the plaintiffs should be the parties of this case, and as long as the plaintiffs did not know of such internal relationship, the tax invoice of this case is not different from the facts.

B) Even if the instant tax invoice is tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiffs confirmed the business registration certificates, the certificate of registration of petroleum sales, and the copy of corporate register, etc. of the instant transaction parties, and concluded a contract with the representative and concluded a product transaction contract with the representative and remitted the oil price to each corporate account, and completed the final settlement, and thus, the instant transaction constitutes a bona fide transaction party with no fault

2) As to the instant disposition imposing global income tax

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the imposition of value-added tax of this case

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

(1) Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount. In such a case, the meaning that it is true is only the name of the income subject to taxation, income, and property, and transaction, and if there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). In addition, it is necessary for the supplier to issue the tax invoice to the person who actually supplies the goods or service to the extent that the entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the transaction, such as the actual supplier or the supplier’s actual supplier’s tax invoice.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, if the business parties of this case listed in the tax invoice of this case as the supplier actually supplied oil to the plaintiffs, whether the business parties of this case actually purchased oil in the transaction with the plaintiffs or not, and the business parties of this case actually provided oil with other oil sales, or if they are merely those who form a nominal legal relationship not with the actual supplier, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice, and evidence Nos. 17 and 20 of this case, and evidence Nos. 2 through 715 and 16 of this case are all written evidence Nos. 2 through 716, and the whole purport of the argument is examined as follows. In light of the above business parties of this case and their purchaser's operating status and cash flow, those who actually supplied oil listed in the tax invoice of this case are not the business parties of this case but the third parties of this case and the business parties of this case and the third parties of this case are merely those who form the actual legal relations between the parties of this case and the third parties of the tax invoice of this case.

① In the case of DDD energy, when the main purchaser issues a false tax invoice without any actual transaction, the data merchant Co., Ltd. I III energy (IIII energy is subject to criminal punishment for violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act (Seoul Northern District Court 2010dan304). The JJJ, which operated IIII energy, did not actually use the oil storage facilities leased at the time of the registration of oil sales business, and ChoK, whose founder and KimL, and whose representative director, submitted a list of false tax invoices by seller (M and GL, the Seoul Southern District Court 2011 High Court 201No801, 201No8444, and the Seoul High Court 20159).

② During the 2009 Value-Added Tax period for the first half of the Value-Added Tax period, the highest value-added tax [the purchase amount of 000 won in comparison with the sales amount of 000 won (the value-added tax rate of 95%)] was all defaulted and was closed ex officio after the default. In 2009, the fact that oil was released or transported at the location of the place of business was not verified, and the fact that oil was purchased from the place of business was not verified, and the transaction amount deposited into the corporate account was withdrawn in cash by dividing it into a small amount of less than 20 million won immediately and in full.

③ EEE솔루션의 경우 2008년 전체 매입세금계산서의 98%가 주식회사 NN에너지，주식회사 PP에너지，주식회사 QQ페트로 등 자료상으로 고발된 업체들로부터 수취한 것이고 그 사업장인 인천 남동구 OO동 0000호는 임대차계약 이후 사무실로 사용된 적이 없으며，유류판매업등록 당시 임차한 유류저장시설도 실제로 사용한 사실이 없을 뿐 아니라，법인계좌로 입금된 거래대금은 입금 즉시 현금으로 출 금되거나 다수의 타행계좌로 분산이체된 후 전액 현금으로 출금되었다.

④ In the case of GG Global, and 95.7% of the total purchase tax invoices of 1st year 2008 were received from RR Petroleum Co., Ltd, SS Energy, etc., which were accused of material, and on May 2008, it was confirmed that there was no oil storage and transportation facilities by leaving the place of business at the seat of the place of business, and the transaction amount deposited into the corporate account was transferred to several individual accounts or withdrawn in cash.

⑤ In the case of HH energy, 95.08% of the total purchase tax invoices for the second period in 2009 were received from lux petroleum chemical, etc., which were accused of the material, and the place of business did not have any facilities capable of selling and storing oil, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, since the Plaintiff’s claim is nothing more than a false tax invoice, since the Plaintiff’s lease of four oil storage tank located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, but the above tank could not exclusively use it, and the transaction amount deposited into the corporate account was deposited into the corporate account. The transaction amount deposited into the corporate account was deposited in cash through T Petroleum Chemical, and UU Energy Corporation’s corporate account, or transferred into TO as the material merchant.

B) Whether the plaintiffs are parties to the transaction with good faith and negligence

(1) An entrepreneur who actually supplies, and a supplier’s other tax invoices are different from the actual details, and barring any special circumstance that there is no negligence in not knowing the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997). Furthermore, the supplier’s actual supplier, and the supplier’s actual supplier’s actual supplier’s actual supplier’s trade name in light of the details of the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, and the specific route and process of the supply of the goods or services, etc., and the supplier’s actual supplier’s actual supplier’s suspicion as to who was not the material, cannot be deemed to have known of the fact that there was no negligence in the actual name of the supplier solely on the basis of the supplier’s business registration certificate, the permit for sales of the goods or services, and the sales specifications.

(2) In light of these legal principles, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs were not aware that the instant oil supplier was actually the actual supplier, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiffs to take account of the names of its customers, and that the Plaintiffs were the actual supplier’s testimony, and that the Plaintiffs were paid the oil price to the corporate account of the instant clients immediately after being supplied with the instant oil, and that the tax invoice corresponding to the oil price was received from the instant clients. However, considering the overall purport of the arguments as seen above, the Plaintiffs were aware of the following circumstances: ① if the oil supplier was not aware of the complex supply structure and tax-free oil in the oil industry, it is necessary to pay attention to the actual supplier; and the Plaintiffs were engaged in the oil business from around 190, and that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the market price of the instant oil supply, and that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the actual supplier’s mobile phone distribution structure and method of the supply of the instant oil, and that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that the Plaintiffs were not aware of the actual supplier’ trading.

2) Determination on the instant disposition imposing global income tax

Article 81(4) and (5) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 47-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provide that the tax invoice of this case is legitimate, and that the tax invoice of this case is calculated based on the provision of Article 81(4) and Article 81(5) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10408, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 47-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 201; see Article 16(2) and (4) of the former Income Tax Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claims for cancellation of the imposition of local income tax for the year 2008 among the claims of the plaintiff Parkb, and the claims of the plaintiff ParkBB and the remaining claims of the plaintiff ParkbA are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.