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

A. From February 1, 2006 to August 14, 2007, the Plaintiff engaged in the oil sales business under the trade name, i.e., ‘pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro-pro rata

B. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 644,217,00 from JN Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “JN Energy”) in the taxable period of the value-added tax for the first half of the year 2006 and the first half of the year 2007, a total of KRW 383,854,000 from JW Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “JW Energy”), a total of KRW 942,517,000 from the SJ Energy Branch (hereinafter referred to as “SJ Energy”), a total of KRW 942,517,00,000 from each of the supply values, including the supply value for JN Energy, JNW Energy and SJ Energy, a total of KRW 92,454,00 from each of the supply value for the supply value for each of the JN Energy (hereinafter referred to as “NN Energy”).

C. On September 1, 2009, the Defendant issued the instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from JN Energy, etc. to the Plaintiff on the ground that it was a false tax invoice, which was 81,253,250 won of value-added tax for the first term of 2006, value-added tax for the second term of 2006, 110,763,610 won of value-added tax for the second term of 2006, and 159,457,960 won of value-added tax for the first term of 207 (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing value-added tax”).

D. In addition, on September 1, 2009, the Defendant rendered a correction and notification of the amount of KRW 168,800,000 as global income tax for the year 2006, and KRW 30,943,730 as global income tax for the year 2007, considering that the difference between the amount deposited in the account in the account in the name of the Plaintiff for the business of the relevant entertainment place and the sales reported by the Plaintiff was omitted in the report of sales (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 18, 2010, but was made on December 31, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

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

Since the Plaintiff purchased oil from JN Energy, etc. and received the instant tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice. Moreover, the Plaintiff did not know that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice, nor did it know that it was a false tax invoice. Therefore, the disposition imposing the value-added tax was unlawful.

(2) As to the instant disposition imposing global income tax

The entire amount deposited in the account under the name of SoY cannot be readily concluded as the sales amount related to the Plaintiff’s operation of the Plaintiff’s BB gas station, and there is also an amount deposited for personal purposes. Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) deemed the entire amount deposited in the account under the name of SoY as the sales amount related to the Plaintiff’s operation of the gas station and imposed global income tax in this case; (b) thus, the instant

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the disposition of value-added tax of this case is legitimate

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

1) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to cases where the contents of the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual supplier, the supplier, the supplier, and the supplier of the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). The fact that the tax invoice submitted by the person liable to pay value-added tax as the basis for the deduction of the input tax amount were falsely prepared without the actual transaction or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact is proved by the tax authority to the extent that it is a real purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice is disputed. In cases where it is proved that the transaction with the supplier as claimed by the taxpayer is significantly false, it is necessary for the person liable to pay value-added tax to present data, such as books and evidence, concerning the actual transaction with the supplier as stated in the tax invoice (see, etc.).

2) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the statements in the evidence set forth above and the evidence set forth in Nos. 6 through 16 (including each branch number, if any) and the whole purport of the pleadings.

① From September 18, 2007 to December 12, 2007, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office issued a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 16,567,00,000 without actual transactions, with the result of the investigation of data on JN Energy (the period subject to the investigation: January 1, 2007; September 16, 2007); JN Energy issued a tax invoice of an amount of KRW 16,256,00,000 without actual transactions; and without actual transactions, the director of the Central Tax Office filed a criminal complaint against JN Energy and the representative Kim R Kim TG.

② From September 18, 2007 to January 16, 2008, the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office issued a tax invoice of an amount equivalent to KRW 5,983,00,000 without actual transaction, with the result of the investigation of data on the JW energy (the period subject to investigation: September 11, 2006; September 11, 2007); JW Energy issued a tax invoice of an amount of KRW 5,983,00,000 without actual transaction; and without actual transaction, it was investigated as data received tax invoices of an amount of KRW 38,408,00,000 without actual transaction; and the Vice Director of the Regional Tax Office filed a criminal charge of JW Energy and the Representative of JW Energy; and the actual operator H.

③ From June 15, 2006 to October 17, 2006, the head of the Goyang District Tax Office investigated the results of the SJ Energy Data-related investigation (the period subject to the investigation: January 5, 2006; January 30, 2006; June 30, 2006); and the SJ Energy was investigated as receiving tax invoices of 20,451,000,000 won from the KCT Co., Ltd. without actual transactions; and the head of the Goyang District Tax Office filed a criminal charge against the SJ Energy.

④ From March 26, 2007 to April 27, 2007, the Defendant conducted a survey on the data of JS Energy (the period subject to the investigation: October 25, 2005; October 25, 2006; December 31, 2006); and JS Energy was determined as a bona fide transaction and terminated the investigation; however, the tax invoice received as a result of the investigation conducted by the Goyang Branch Office of the Goyang Branch Office of the Government's High District Prosecutors' Office was confirmed as a false tax invoice, and the Defendant filed a criminal charge against JS Energy.

⑤ On June 18, 2009, JW Energy’s actual operator Kim T-G, JW Energy and JW Energy’s actual operator JH and JW Energy’s actual operator: (a) on June 18, 2009, Daejeon District Court Decision 2008Gohap226 (Separation); (b) on 2009Gohap6; (c) on 2009Gohap5 (Consolidated); (d) 2009Gohap5 (Joint); (b) on 2006, 209Gohap9, 99 (Joint); and (c) on 2006, GG submitted 208 WN’s supply price of goods or services, 200 million won in total; (b) on 2006, 30 billion won in total; (c) on 100,000 won in total, 250,000 won in supply price for each of the above goods or services; and (d) on 206GN’s total supply price for each of goods or services.

(6) On July 2, 2008, SJ Energy received false tax invoices from the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, and received the disposition of suspension of indictment on the ground that it is not possible to enforce the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by closing its business on December 31, 2006.

7) On the other hand, the U.S.J, the actual operator of the JS Energy, was acquitted of the facts charged in the case on January 4, 2008, 2007 Gohap85, 2007 Gohap85, 2007 Gohap116, 2007 Gohap158 (combined), which entered the list of total tax invoices in the list of total tax invoices, and evaded the value-added tax by entering the list of total tax invoices in the list of total tax invoices, and did not issue a tax invoice in the list of non-data purchased without the registration of business. The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 20, 208.

8. Results of the investigation by seller on the defendant's place of a trade;

JN Energy: Although the amount of the Plaintiff’s deposit into JN Energy was immediately transferred to Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DN Energy”), the JN Energy was not supplied with oil from DR Energy; JN Energy was accused of the material; the Plaintiff did not present a shipment slip, transport specifications, etc.; therefore, the tax invoice issued from JN Energy was determined differently from the fact.

- JW Energy: A tax invoice, deposit details, statement of transaction, and shipment table were submitted as evidence proving that the party was actually supplied with oil from JW Energy; however, it was confirmed that the amount deposited by the Plaintiff to JW Energy was immediately transferred to DW Energy; JW Energy was an enterprise that was accused of the fact as a result of the investigation by the Director of the Regional Tax Office of China, and therefore, the tax invoice delivered from JW Energy was confirmed as a tax invoice different from the fact.

- SJ Energy: SJ Energy is an enterprise which has been accused of material, and the Plaintiff fails to present objective data, such as a shipment slip and a transport statement, by which it can identify the actual quantity, and it is confirmed that the amount deposited by the Plaintiff to SJ Energy was immediately transferred to another enterprise, and therefore, the tax invoice delivered from SJ Energy is also confirmed to be a false tax invoice.

- JS Energy: The plaintiff alleged that he paid 100 million won in advance to JS Energy on January 20, 2006 and received transit by 5,000 liters transport vehicles. However, around January 20, 2006, the oil oil storage facilities are not secured at the e-mail station, and even if 100 million won was paid in advance as alleged by the plaintiff, any material such as oil supply contract guaranteeing the supply of oil is not verified and no material such as a shipment slip verifying the actual transaction is submitted. Thus, the tax invoice delivered from JS Energy is confirmed as a false tax invoice.

- Other oil purchase, etc. shall be determined by normal transactions.

3) The above facts and arguments are as follows. JN Energy and JW Energy were examined as data as a result of the investigation conducted by the Director of the District Tax Office on the materials of the Daejeon District Court, and it was found that SJ Energy was convicted of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the Daejeon District Court's support data, and it was investigated that SJ Energy received tax invoices equivalent to KRW 20,451,00,000 without actual transaction from KCE, and the suspension of indictment was ordered at the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Port Office; the Plaintiff transferred the money deposited to JN Energy, JW and J Energy without delay to other companies, such as DTR Energy, or the Plaintiff did not submit a shipment slip for oil trading with the above companies, or the Plaintiff did not prove that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that there was a lack of evidence to prove that there was a lack of evidence to prove that there was a lack of evidence to prove that there was a lack of evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was a tax evasion or a lack of evidence to prove the content of the tax invoice.

(B) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide or without fault or not

1) 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 relevant 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 2002Du227

2) According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 9-1 through 6, and Gap evidence No. 10, the plaintiff can be found to have received a trade specification statement from JN Energy, etc., and remitted money to JN Energy. However, it is insufficient to find that the above facts alone did not know that the tax invoice delivered by the plaintiff from JN Energy, etc. is different from the facts and that the plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the facts, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, in light of the above evidence and the purport of the whole arguments, the plaintiff could find facts that the plaintiff failed to submit or submitted a shipment list, etc. which can prove that there was actual transaction with JN Energy, etc., or that some submitted shipment slips are different forms from the shipment slips ordinarily used. However, although the shipment slips are important materials to verify that oil was traded through normal distribution routes, the plaintiff did not know that the plaintiff was unable to submit or submitted a shipment slip that was ordinarily used by the plaintiff, etc., or that the plaintiff did not know that it was not easily paid the other parts of the plaintiff.

(2) Whether the instant disposition of global income tax was lawful

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 6, the plaintiff operated a commercial entertainment station in the name of SoY, opened a bank account in the name of SoY, conducted financial transactions such as deposit of oil sales price, withdrawal of oil purchase price, etc., and the plaintiff stated in the defendant's tax investigation that all revenues of the commercial entertainment station are deposited in the account in the name of SoY. The defendant's tax investigation conducted a tax investigation against the plaintiff, that the difference between the amount deposited in the account in the name of SoY and the sales amount of the above gas station reported by the plaintiff to the defendant was confirmed to be KRW 163,80,000, and that the plaintiff did not present any grounds for the difference. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff should be viewed as sales amount related to the operation of the above gas station, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion that the above difference was used for any personal purpose as alleged by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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