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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the first value-added tax for the Plaintiff on July 5, 2012, the first time value-added tax for the year 2009, the second time value-added tax for the year 2009, and the second time global income tax for the year 2009 is revoked.

A. From January 29, 2009 to June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff operated a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name called “OO station” from 1136, Cheongcheon-gu, Cheongcheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do.

B. The Plaintiff is a tax invoice of the total value of supply in the first taxable period of the value-added tax for the first taxable period of the value-added tax for the year 2009, and the total value of supply in the second taxable period of the value-added tax for the second taxable period of the value-added tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”).

Upon receipt of the input tax amount, the input tax amount was deducted from the output tax amount, and the input tax amount was declared.

C. The Defendant considers the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice, and thus, the relevant input tax amount.

denied the Plaintiff on July 5, 2012, the value-added tax for the first term of 2009, the OOO for the first term of 2009, and the year 2009

2 Imposition of value-added tax for 2 years, OOO and OOO for global income tax for 2009

The disposition(hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case") was taken.

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 5, 2012, but was dismissed on December 18, 2012.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil from OO and received the instant tax invoice. Since the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Even if the actual supplier of oil is not an OO, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and there was no negligence in not knowing that the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation of value-added tax (in data) on OO from August 26, 2009 to March 16, 2010, and details thereof are as follows.

A) Since the OOO opened its business on May 1, 2003 with its place of business, the OOO operated a business that supplies heavy oil (mith oil) to textile manufacturing enterprises, etc. On January 17, 2009, the OO started wholesale business by establishing a branch office of OOtel No. 200, which delegated all duties to the OOO on January 17, 2009. The above branch was smaller than eight square meters, and did not own oil storage facilities or oil transport vehicles, and there were no facilities or vehicles of the head office.

B) For the period of 2008, the OOO supplies heavy oil to textile manufacturers, etc.; and

However, since 209, the first sales in 2009 increased 56 times compared to the second sales in 2008.

C) On a tax invoice issued by the OO, the Plaintiff, OO, OO oil, etc. are sold.

The details of transportation by vehicle, date, and customer submitted by the OO on these sales were confirmed to be different from the details of shipment and carriage submitted by the oil refining company, and the tax invoice delivered by the OO was written by OO, OOO, and it did not appear that the buyer ordered oil in the oil company.

D) Accordingly, in the first and second taxable periods of the value-added tax for the first and second taxable periods of the OO head office in 2009, 86.2% of the sales amount of the OO head office is disguised and processed sales, OO members, which are 86.9% of the purchase amount, were the disguised and processed sales amount, 97.3% of the sales amount of OO head office in OO head office in 2009, were the processed sales amount, and OO members, which were 97% of the purchase amount, were the processed sales amount.

2) The Plaintiff received the shipment slips issued by the OO in the course of trading with the OO. The shipment slips include the date of shipment, the vehicle number, the name of the business partner (the oil station of this case), the shipment (OO,O,O), the type and quantity of oil, the transporter, the receiver’s signature (the signature of the recipient was omitted in the shipment slips of April 24, 2009) and do not contain any details as to the arrival of destination, the shipper, the state of oil, etc.

3) However, the OO entered as a driver of the above forwarding slips from January 2009

In the instant gas station by the end of June 2010, it was true that oil was transported without false quantity to the gas station in the instant case. However, it was stated that only the shipment slips issued by the oil station were delivered to the Plaintiff stating the kind, temperature, weight, etc., and that there was no fact that the said shipment slips were delivered to the Plaintiff.

4) Even before the operation of the gas station of this case, the Plaintiff had the same trade name in the same place as before the operation of the gas station of this case.

4. From January 2, 2001, when operating a gas station, the site of the gas station was leased to a third party, but, since January 29, 2009, gasoline was mainly supplied by OOO and diesel was supplied by OO in the case of diesel.

5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was accused of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act against the OO prosecutor’s office, but on December 2012

4. He/she is subject to a disposition not to institute a prosecution due to suspicion of suspicion;

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 2 to 10 evidence, Eul 11-1;

2. Each description of witness, testimony of OO, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

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

The meaning that entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from facts is subject to taxation.

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction, and there is a person to whom such income, profit, or transaction actually belongs, and there is another person to whom such income, profit, property, act, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction actually belongs shall apply to the person to whom such income, etc. belongs, regardless of the formal descriptions such as a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or supplied, value, time, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Furthermore, the person to whom value-added tax is to be issued by a business operator who supplies the goods or service under the Value-Added Tax Act, rather than a person constituting a nominal legal relationship with the supplier or the person to whom the goods are supplied.

Generally, the burden of proof on the facts of taxation requirement is imposed in a lawsuit revoking the tax imposition disposition.

However, in a case where it is proved that the facts alleged in the fact of taxation requirements in light of the empirical rules in the specific litigation process have been presumed, the pertinent taxation disposition cannot be readily concluded as an unlawful disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements unless it proves that the pertinent facts in question are inappropriate to apply the empirical rules or that there are special circumstances to exclude the application of such empirical rules in the pertinent case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002; 2006Du6383, Sept. 22, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, OO in the tax investigation of OO on the instant case

The purchase amount and sales amount are confirmed as a substantial part processing, and the tax invoice issued by the OO does not appear with the order of oil in the oil company by the OO, and the details of transportation submitted by the OO with respect to the sales of the plaintiff et al. listed in the tax invoice issued by the OO were confirmed to be different from the details of the shipment and the details of the carriage submitted by the oil company.According to these circumstances, it is recognized that there was a substantial case where other companies than the OO supplied oil and only the OO delivered the tax invoice while supplying the oil.

As above, the OO which transported oil to the Plaintiff shall transport oil to the Plaintiff.

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff did not submit the shipment slips even though it was stated that it delivered the normal shipment slips with the oil type, temperature, weight, etc. issued by the oil reservoir, and that the shipment slips issued by the OO do not contain any specific content on the place of destination or the state of oil unlike the shipment slips issued by the oil reservoir, the instant tax invoice recognizes the case where a company other than OO supplies oil and the OO delivers only the tax invoice. Meanwhile, the criminal and tax administration dispositions are different from the requirements and the degree of proof that the Plaintiff was subject to a non-prosecution disposition on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the mere fact that the Plaintiff was subject to such disposition does not interfere with the above recognition.

Therefore, the tax invoice of this case is entered falsely by the supplier.

It is reasonable to see that it falls under one.

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

(A) an entrepreneur that actually supplies and another tax invoice that is entered by the supplier, if any;

Unless there is any special circumstance that a person who receives input tax is not aware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and was unaware of the fact, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refundable, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that the person who received the supply was not negligent in not knowing the fact that he/she was nominal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27,

B) The purport of the entire pleadings as to the descriptions of Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and 8

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Plaintiff received a certificate of seal impression from the OO at the time of the transaction with the OO, the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from the OO and transferred the amount equivalent thereto to the OO account. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the type, temperature, proportion, etc. of oil shipped out at the decline; however, although the Plaintiff’s dispatch slips received from the OO only include the kind, quantity, transporter, vehicle number, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as the normal shipment slips due to defective contents, such as the arrival or the state of oil, and the Plaintiff had experience in the past, and the Plaintiff was also engaged in normal purchase transactions with the OO as well as the oil transaction with the OO, the Plaintiff can be seen as having compared the type, mode, etc. of the oil transaction with the oil supplier, not the above supplier’s name.

③ In addition, the Plaintiff appears to have been supplied with oil at a price lower than the market price by OO. However, in the event of purchasing oil through an ordinary agency or intermediary wholesaler, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of, or was not negligent in, the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of, the name of the supplier, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, in light of the fact that there were sufficient circumstances to suspect that the oil supplied at a price lower than the market price was a problem in the distribution process, barring special circumstances.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)