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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 of value-added tax for the first time in 2009 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 201 and the imposition of KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second time in 2009, respectively, shall be revoked.

The reasons for this part are the same as the entry in the column of the second to 20th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) A false tax invoice;

The Plaintiff is supplied with oil from BB energy in fact and the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice. Therefore, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction based on the instant tax invoice by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice, which is unlawful. Even if the entries in the instant tax invoice are different from the facts, where transaction between the parties is confirmed under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60(2)2 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, input tax deduction based on the instant tax invoice should be granted. Accordingly, the instant disposition denying the input tax deduction based on the instant tax invoice is unlawful.

(b) Good faith and negligence;

Under the Value-Added Tax Act, there is no basis to view that all transactions between the seller and the prior transaction partners are true and require good faith and without fault to the seller to be not material, and the disposition of this case on the premise of such good faith is unlawful. Even if such good faith is required to the oil purchaser, the plaintiff did not know that the above good faith was required to the GSSCT corporation, but the plaintiff did not know that the transaction was conducted after directly visiting the BB energy office at the time of Sungnam-gu OB energy, and the BB energy storage place at the time of PB energy transaction with BB energy, and that there was no negligence by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not know that the BB tax invoice was in violation of the BB tax invoice by directly remitting the oil price to the corporation account at the time of BB energy transaction, the BB card, the copy of the passbook, and the data received the BB tax invoice at the time of the transaction, and that the BB tax invoice was unlawful.

3. Determination

(a) Value-Added Tax Act;

(1) The meaning that the entries in a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, or transaction subject to taxation is merely the nominal owner, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer, and that the necessary entries in a tax invoice shall be deemed to refer to cases where the necessary entries in a transaction contract between the parties to the goods or service are in accord with those who actually supplied the goods or service, or those who actually supplied the goods or service, or those who actually supplied the goods or service, or those who actually rendered the service, are in accord with those who actually supplied the goods or service, and those who actually received the tax invoice and those who actually supplied the goods or service, including those who actually supplied the goods or service, should be deemed to be 100 persons who actually supplied the goods or service, and 200 persons who actually supplied the goods or service, and are provided with the service, 2000 persons who actually supplied the goods or service.

"(2) On the other hand, Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 60 (2) 2 and 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that input tax may be deducted in cases where part of the requisite entries of the tax invoice issued "," and Article 60 (2) 2 and 5-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act were erroneously entered, but the fact of transaction is confirmed in view of other necessary entries or voluntary entries in the relevant tax invoice (Article 2) and 6 "If the tax invoice was delivered in the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods or services belongs and the fact of transaction is confirmed" (Article 5). The above provision provides that input tax amount shall be deducted in cases where some of the necessary entries in the tax invoice were erroneously entered, but the taxable period to which the date of actual preparation of the tax invoice belongs, and the taxable period to which the actual transaction date belongs (Article 202Du571, Nov. 18, 2004). 202>

B. The instant tax invoice

The tax invoice of this case is examined as follows, in light of the facts found to be comprehensiveized in Gap evidence 3, 6, 18, 26, and 2, and 4 (including household numbers) and the witness testimony of the first instance court for the entire purpose of the pleading.

(1) The time when the tax invoice is entered, and the company DNA (hereinafter referred to as “DB”) supplies BB energy to the Plaintiff, and the BB energy is supplied to the Plaintiff. According to the E’s representative of the BB Energy, BB energy purchased oil from Dop, sold it to the gas station in this case operated by the Plaintiff, and such oil was shipped out from Dop. However, the pre-delivery which was issued by Dop on the BB energy investigation was not indicated on the shipment list, and it was not completely consistent with the delivery place listed in the BB energy shipment list issued by the Plaintiff. In addition, it was not possible to confirm the actual shipment of the oil, and most of them were supplied to the Plaintiff at the time when the tax invoice was supplied to the Dop account because it was not recorded on the shipment list. In addition, it was not possible to find that the place of destination for the shipment of the oil was Dop, and that the remaining amount of the oil transfer of the Plaintiff’s operation, and that it was not confirmed at the place of arrival and sale of the DoB.

(2) The pre-shipment table issued by static oil is to be delivered by static oil transport vehicles registered in static oil to vehicle engineers when receiving oil in the oil reservoir, when entering the date and time of shipment, the oil flow, the place of arrival, the vehicle number, and the vehicle engineer, and when delivering two copies to vehicle engineers, the vehicle engineer is to be supplied to the gas station at the destination. These pre-shipment table plays the role of delivery and receipt for ice transaction, and in static oil supply contract concluded between BB energy and the Plaintiff (Evidence 3), the petroleum products are not listed in the domestic four oil refining (SK, GS, Hyundai, S-roil) products, and the shipping points are not listed in the shipping quantity list at the price of the oil station, and are not listed in the pre-sale container and the shipping quantity list at the price of the oil station at the price of the oil station at the price of the oil station at which the static and general agencies are not listed in the Category 1 DNA, but are not listed in the Category 5 (DB).

The plaintiff worked as a business employee from around 1987 to 2000, and from around 2004, the plaintiff operated oil wholesale and retail business from around 2004, and according to the testimony of the directors of the BB Energy, the plaintiff did not make any speech to BB energy with respect to the shipment slips issued by refined and similar. In light of the above circumstances, although the BB Energy and the plaintiff agreed to trade oil shipped from refined and similar oil, the trade between the plaintiff was made using the shipment slips issued by refined and similar oil at low prices while recovering the shipment slips issued by DD or BB Energy, and it is more likely that BB Energy did not actually provide oil to the plaintiff, and that BB Energy did not issue the tax invoice and only did not provide the oil to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also knew or could have known that BB Energy did not actually supply the oil.

(3) If so, it is recognized that BB energy was not actually supplied to the Plaintiff, and that there was negligence to the Plaintiff, and therefore, the instant tax invoice is different from the facts, and the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to deduct input tax based on the instant tax invoice, because it was not bona fide or without fault.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the disposition of this case, which denied the input tax deduction based on the tax invoice of this case, shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.