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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 1, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the global income tax OOOO for the Plaintiff in the year 2008.

“A. From June 1, 2007, the Plaintiff operated a gas station under the trade name of OO-dong 232-8 to BB gas station. From CCC (hereinafter “CC”) on January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff received each tax invoice for the supply price of OOO, the input tax amount of OOO, and one set of tax invoices for the supply price of OOOOOO, the input tax amount of OOOOO, and one set of tax invoices for the supply price of March 31, 2008 (hereinafter “each tax invoice in this case”). (b) The Plaintiff filed a comprehensive income tax return for the Defendant in 2008, including the total value of each tax invoice in the necessary expenses.

C. The head of the same tax office, after conducting a tax investigation with respect to the CCC, confirmed the CCC on the data that issued false tax invoices and notified the Defendant of the data.

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 2012, the Defendant decided to exclude the supply value of each of the instant tax invoices that the Plaintiff received from CCC from necessary expenses on the ground that it is a processed tax invoice received without a real transaction, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the OOOO of global income tax for the year 2008 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). E. The Plaintiff filed a request for review on November 30, 2012, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service decided to dismiss the request on February 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although CCC is a material, the Plaintiff actually purchased petroleum through uD and paid OOOO as a fuel purchase price under each of the tax invoices of this case, which should be included in the necessary expenses related to global income tax in 2008. The Defendant’s disposition that was not included in this forum is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) CCC is a company that has a place of business in OOO-gu OO-dong 1477-10, and undergoes a tax investigation on suspicion of receipt of the processed purchase tax invoice OOOOOO won by Han-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., which was accused of the data during the first period of 2008. The total amount of the purchase tax invoice became final and conclusive as a processing transaction, and was accused as data, and was closed ex officio on March 31, 2008.

2) The sales tax invoice for a company confirmed to have conducted a simple and repeated transaction of deposit in a specific account among the CCC accounts and cash withdrawals in a simple manner was determined as a processing tax invoice without real transactions. Each of the instant tax invoices constitutes the same.

3) On the ground that the Plaintiff received each of the instant tax invoices, which are false tax invoices from data merchants, the Defendant imposed a revised value-added tax amount by deducting the relevant amount from the input tax amount, and the Plaintiff did not dispute this and paid the said value-added tax. The details of the transaction list between CCC and BB oil stations are as follows.

See Table 3-4 see Decision 3-4

"4) Of the shipment slips issued by the Plaintiff in the name of CCC, the remaining shipment slips, except for the shipment slips from March 31, 2008, do not contain any column such as the electric code number, temperature, weight, tank number, etc., unlike the shipment slips. The shipment slips on March 31, 2008 include only the “E EE oil station without the time of shipment” and only the “EOO of the arrival place,” and 5) the entry and withdrawal details related to the Plaintiff among the issuance details of each tax invoice issue of each of the instant case, are as follows.

"6) On May 31, 2012, the actual operator of the CCC was KimGG, supplied non-material oil to BB oil stations, and prepared a written statement stating that "the Plaintiff was paid in cash upon arrival of oil," and the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff to pay in cash, but the Plaintiff refused to pay in cash the petroleum supply amount directly, and requested the Plaintiff to find cash instead of receiving the CCC passbook and the seal. Since oil was brought to non-data, it was received in cash.

○ Witness directly dried KimG, the actual operator of the CCC, or transferred oil according to the direction of KimGG, which was collected from the Plaintiff.

○○ KimG paid an oil payment immediately after receipt of cash due to lack of financing capacity.

○ Petroleum supplied to the Plaintiff is a non-material oil, which is produced from the oil oil, and it is well known where it is supplied.

○ demanding the Plaintiff to give a company passbook of the CCC and withdraw cash is a non-data oil, so it is intended to keep evidence out of cash transactions, and to make transactions accurately because the witness also did not enter 100% of the KimGG. The right to collect money on the same day is an oil payment in cash upon arrival of the oil. If the oil arrive, the payment of money is to be made upon arrival of the oil, and there is no way to find money if the bank closes or closes down the door.

KimGG, the actual operator of ○, is known to go overseas to Busan in 1967, and the driver who supplied oil has a face, but there is no way to communicate, and there is also no way to communicate, such as personal information.

(vii)The records of criminal punishment for the issuance, etc. of false tax invoices during that period are as follows:

Ulsan District Court Decision 2006No781 Decided January 26, 2007 (Final Judgment)

- Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor;

- 범죄사실: HH에너지 주식회사의 대표이사로서 18장 세금계산서에 실제보다 OOOO원의 유류를 더 공급한 것처럼 허위 기재, 재화나 용역을 공급함이 없이 합계 OOOO원의 세금계산서 7장을 교부받음|

○ Daegu District Court Decision 2010Ma61 decided February 18, 2010 (Final District Court Decision 2010Ma61 decided February 18, 201)

- Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor;

- Crime: Receipt of 12 false tax invoices equivalent to the total amount of OOO won even though the oil was not supplied.

-Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice), Violation of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act, Fraud: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and fines OOOs as set out in the holding, 2 years of suspended execution for 3 years; and

- Crime: Receipt of false tax invoices equivalent to the total amount of OOO won, issuance of false tax invoices equivalent to the total amount of OOOO won 41, etc.

○ Daegu District Court Branch Decision 2013Gohap56 decided August 19, 2013 (Appeal)

-Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice): Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and fine OO

- Crime: Issuing or being issued seven copies of tax invoices of the total value of supply of oil:

"8) On November 3, 2012, 208, on March 31, 2012, 2012, the key II prepared a confirmation document stating that "30,000 litres have been transported via OO O O O O OOOOOO units on the BB stations located in OB Dongs," but it was confirmed that the public official in charge of the defendant was asked on December 3, 2012 that he was sent from the person who was sent the above transit by phone to OOOOOOO units." However, the plaintiff did not report the transaction status of petroleum entering or shipped to the Korea National Oil Corporation. Meanwhile, the plaintiff did not report the details of the transaction with CCC. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's gross profit ratio [total profit ratio = (Sales profit ratio) - sales revenue ratio) / sales X00] is significantly lower than 4.39% compared to the national average profit ratio of the same type of business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 6, Eul evidence 2 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of taxation on the ground of illegality of taxation, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of taxation and the existence of the taxation requirement. As such, in principle, the tax authority bears the burden of proving necessary expenses that constitute the basis of the determination of taxable income. However, as necessary expenses are favorable to the taxpayer, and the relationship between the facts that form the basis of necessary expenses is most within the control area of the taxpayer, and thus, the tax authority is difficult to prove. Thus, if it is reasonable to have the taxpayer prove the burden of proving the burden of proof in consideration of the difficulty of proof or equity between the parties, the need for proof must be returned to the taxpayer. Therefore, if it is proved that the tax invoice on some of the expenses reported by the taxpayer was prepared by the defendant who is the tax authority without real transactions, and it is proved that the taxpayer's party to the payment was false, the taxpayer should be able to present all the data such as account books and documentary evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Nu166284, Oct. 28, 196867.

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts and evidence revealed, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to prove that the Plaintiff has actually paid the oil price equivalent to the supply price stated in each of the tax invoices of this case through uD. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge this only by the entries of the evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 7, and 9, and some of the testimonys No. 6 and the testimonys of the evidence Nos. 6 and witness prosecutions, and the counter II are difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

① CCC was confirmed as the so-called “data No. 1” issued only without sales and purchase, and each of the instant tax invoices was found to have been falsely prepared, and the Defendant deducted the amount supplied under each of the instant tax invoices from the input tax amount, and then issued a disposition to rectify the value-added tax against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid all of the above value-added tax.” ② The Plaintiff received a passbook and seal in the name of CCC, and then withdrawn again in cash on the same day.

③ The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff left the details of the deposited money to the account of the CCC on the same day, and that it is difficult to withdraw cash on its own due to the time, etc. However, it is difficult to obtain payment as a very exceptional act.

④ Since KimGG, the actual manager of the CCC, paid the oil price immediately after receiving cash due to the shortage of funds, there is no way to find out the bank's money when the oil arrives late, and thus, it is argued that the payment was promptly made in cash upon requesting the Plaintiff. However, the date, amount (the transaction statement) that the Plaintiff purchased the oil and the date, amount (the account entry and withdrawal details) that the Plaintiff entered into and withdrawn from the CCC is not accurately inconsistent with the date, amount (the transaction statement) and the amount (the account entry and withdrawal details) that the Plaintiff purchased the oil, and the delivery of the oil to KimG by finding the cash through the Plaintiff instead of the most rapid and rapid method of direct transfer to KimG is contrary to common sense.

⑤ In addition to the details asserted by the Plaintiff as oil transaction price, the Plaintiff and CCC have the details of multiple entries and withdrawals. In particular, the Plaintiff asserted that, upon the request of RD on February 12, 2008, the Plaintiff sent the OOO won from a person who is not at all related to himself/herself in cash, and that the relationship between the Plaintiff and CCC does not seem to be only the ordinary oil transaction party.

6) The confirmation document of the facts in Part II that transported oil 3,00 liters on November 28, 2008 is difficult to believe that there is no objective evidence to prove that the date and quantity transported to the Plaintiff before several years are specified.

7. There is no other evidence to deem that the Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil listed in each of the instant tax invoices by companies other than CCC.

(8) There is no record of purchase of oil from CCC during the first period of 2008 in the petroleum transaction situation register reported by the Plaintiff to the Korea Petroleum Corporation.

9. The Plaintiff’s total trading profit ratio is considerably lower than the national average trading profit ratio of the same type of business. Therefore, the Plaintiff appears to have reported excessive necessary expenses than the actual expenses.

3. Conclusion

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