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

A. The Plaintiff is running a place of gas supply under XX 00-0 from the XX 00-0.

B. In 2007, the Plaintiff received two copies of the tax invoice of KRW 66,406,00 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in total from the O Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O Energy”) during the first taxable period of the value-added tax, and filed an additional tax return including the value of supply in the input tax amount subject to the deduction.

C. On January 4, 2010, the Defendant: (a) issued false sales and purchase tax invoices to the Plaintiff without real transaction; (b) denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction pursuant to the instant tax invoice on the ground that the instant tax invoice issued by the said Plaintiff was also a false tax invoice; and (c) issued a revised notice of KRW 8,815,920 for the first year value-added tax in 2007.

D. On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition, and received a decision of dismissal on November 23, 201, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2-1, 2-3-1, 2-2, Eul 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff purchased oil from O-Energy and received a tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice. In addition, in that sense, the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that O-Energy was a disguised business operator and was not aware of such fact, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice for disguised or fictitious transaction and the entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts, the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and if there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer and the person to whom it actually belongs shall apply the tax law. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, the person to whom it actually supplies the goods

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul 2 and 3, the tax invoice issued in 2007 is 100% processed sales, which is the so-called "data" that issued the processed tax invoice without actual oil transactions, and the place of business of O Energy leased and used the office for four months, and the fact that the above company did not store and store oil in a small oil storage tank leased from △△ Group Co., Ltd. according to the above facts. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the tax invoice in this case constitutes a tax invoice prepared without actual transaction or disguised or fictitious transaction (in light of the above facts of recognition, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff purchased oil corresponding to the tax invoice in this case from O energy solely on the basis of each statement of Gap 3 through 8 (including each number where there is a serial number) submitted by the plaintiff.

2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, 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, Jun. 28, 2002).

Therefore, according to each statement of Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 10 (including each serial number in the case of additional serial number), the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from O Energy and remitted the amount stated in the above tax invoice to O energy. However, the above recognition alone cannot be said to be insufficient for the plaintiff to know the fact that the plaintiff was unaware of the name of O energy, and there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 5-1 through 3, the plaintiff's place of business of OO was against AA Metropolitan City, and the plaintiff did not know the fact that the plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice of this case for the above period of 30 years, even though there was no substantial need to do so. According to the above fact that the plaintiff did not know that the plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice of this case for the above period of 10 years after the fact that the plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice of this case.

3. Conclusion

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