B. On December 5, 2008, the imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2006, exceeding 4,352,882 won among the imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2,006, and the imposition of value-added tax for the first term portion of 2007, exceeding 543,494 won among the imposition of value-added tax for the first term portion of 12,397,300 won shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 3/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

A. From June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who runs a petroleum retail business under the trade name of "B gas station" from 26-63, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul.

B. In 2006, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 150,854,546, total value of supply in the name of DD Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD Energy”), and KRW 71,854,545,545 in the purchase tax invoice of KRW 71,85,545 in the name of D Energy during the first taxable period of January 2007 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices including six purchase tax invoices”), and deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount, or filed a return on the value-added tax and the aggregate income tax by including it in the necessary expenses from the total business income.

C. From September 18, 2007 to November 16, 2007, the director of the Central Tax Office of China issued a tax invoice of KRW 71 billion equivalent to about 99.5% of the value-added tax base without supplying actual oil to the sales partner of the Plaintiff, etc., and notified it to each head of the competent tax office, by deeming that Daehan had issued a tax invoice of KRW 71.4 billion equivalent to about 9.5% of the value-added tax base without supplying actual oil to the sales partner of the Plaintiff, etc., due to the method of forging the shipment slips during the first taxable period from February 2, 2006 to November 2007.

D. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, from October 21, 2008 to November 24, 2008, conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff with respect to the global income tax amounting to KRW 14,560,687,712 (excluding value-added tax) for 2005 to KRW 14,560,687,712 (excluding value-added tax), 110,705,705,705, 669, 2065, 207, 2096, 2096, 205, 2096, 207, 20946, 205, 2096, 305, 2096, 205, 2096, 205, 2096, 205, 2096, 20646, 2965, 2096, 20946, 25636, 26465656, 20946,

E. Accordingly, the Defendants reported each of the tax invoices of this case as false tax invoices received without real transactions, and on the grounds that some of the cash sales was omitted, and excessive appropriation of necessary expenses, etc., the Defendants: (a) on December 5, 2008, the head of Nowon-gu District Tax Office issued a disposition to impose a revised value-added tax of KRW 25,532,820 for the second term of December 2006; and (b) a disposition to impose a revised value-added tax of KRW 12,397,300 for the first term of January 2007 (hereinafter “each of the instant disposition”); (c) on the same day, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Tax Office issued a revised disposition to impose a revised disposition of KRW 97,672,540 for global income tax, etc. for the year 2006, and a revised disposition of KRW 67,394,500 for global income tax for the year 207 (hereinafter “each disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff’s principal

The Plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that the above transaction was processed by the Defendants, even though the Plaintiff purchased a total sum of 240,000 won from November 2006 to January 2007, and paid KRW 244,980,000 from D Energy Business Directors to D Energy Corporation Account, were unlawful.

2) The defendants' master craftsman

The Defendants asserted that each of the instant dispositions of this case is legitimate, as long as the Plaintiff did not submit the account books and other evidentiary documents for actual transactions, since D Energy did not enter or depart from the business place outside the Korea KK Terminal Terminal Co., Ltd. after 2006, and the tax invoice of KRW 7091,9430,000,000 equivalent to about 99.5% of the purchase tax base of value-added tax during the first taxable period of January 2007 is not on the data, but on the part of the ordinary business operator, such as the Plaintiff’s receipt of the tax invoice from the DD Energy, East Asia Energy, Lighting Energy, and Thoma Co., Ltd., Ltd., without actual transactions.

(b) Related statutes;

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

C. Determination

1) In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction constitutes a “tax invoice different from the fact” under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the input tax deduction is denied on the ground that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008).

2) However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 (including each number) of the Plaintiff’s husband, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation that the Plaintiff’s husband, on November 17, 2008, he/she omitted the value-added tax and the comprehensive income tax on the tax invoice different from the actual transaction of light oil. ② Thai Energy alleged by the Plaintiff to have been supplied with oil was leased one machine of the oil storage tank (1,00KL) from around September 2004 to the Southern Terminal Terminal Co., Ltd., Ltd., and thereafter, after 2006, it was impossible to find that the Plaintiff’s vehicle and article required for the Plaintiff’s delivery of oil to the Plaintiff’s owner of the Plaintiff’s automobile did not have any doubt about the delivery of oil to the Plaintiff’s representative director or the place of destination, etc. for sale of the Plaintiff’s automobile and article of the Plaintiff’s 2,707,700,000,7170.

3) 그러나, 갑 제2, 3, 5 내지 12호증, 을 제7호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변 론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 이FF이 세무조사 당시 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 경유의 실제거래와 관련 없는 허위세금계산서라는 내용의 확인서를 작성하기는 하였으나, 이는 세무조사 과정에서 조사공무원이 원고의 요청에 따라 AA에너지주식회사에 수송장벼별 출하현황을 조회하여 원고 주장의 차량과 기사가 해당날짜에는 출하내역이 없거나 도착지 등이 서로 다르게 기재되어 있는 점과 원고가 DD에너지와 거래한 동안에 DD에너지가 AA에너지주식회사로부터 구입한 석유가 79,450,000원 상당에 불과한 점 등을 제시하면서, DD에너지와 거래내역을 정리하여 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 허위라는 내용으로 이FF에게 원고의 대리인으로서 확인, 서명하도록 하여 작성된 것으로 보이는데, 이정섭은 당시 70세의 노인으로써 당시 조사공무원들의 위세에 눌려 얼떨결에 서명해 주게 되었다고 진술하고 있고, 조세심판 청구시에도 조사공무원들의 강압 등에 의하여 작성되었다고 주장하였던 점 및 뒤에서 보는 여러 사정 등에 비추어 볼 때, 위 확인서의 내용을 그대로 믿기 어려운 점, ② 원고는 2006. 11.경부터 2007. 1.경까지 DD에너지의 영업이사라고 칭하는 심EE으로부터 부정 유통되는 면세유 합계 240,000£를 구입한 것으로 하여 2006. 11. 7.부터 2007. 1. 30.까지 12회에 걸쳐 그 대금 합계 244,980,000원을 자신의 국민은행 계좌에서 DD에 너지 법인계좌(HH 강서지점 및 계양HH 변방지점 계좌)로 각 송금하였고, 이에 대하여 피고들은 DD에너지가 원고로부터 위 대금을 각 송금받은 날 HH 강서지점으로 송금받은 79,000,000원(부가가치세 포함) 상당은 곧바로 주식회사 동북아에너지로 인터넷 출금되었고, 계양HH 변방지점 계좌로 송금받은 166,000,000원(부가가치세 포함) 상당은 직접 현금 인출되었음을 이유로 허위의 세금계산서 수수를 은폐하기 위한 금융거래조작에 불과하다고 하면서도 위와 같이 송금된 돈이 다시 원고에게 반환되었는지 여부에 관하여는 이를 조사하지 않았거나 밝히지 못하고 있는 점, ③ 원고는 AA주유소 대리점을 운영하므로 POS(point of sales management, 판매시점관리) 시스템을 통하여 유류의 입ㆍ출고 및 재고가 관리되는데, 만약 DD에너지와의 유류거래가 허위의 거래라면 POS시스템상 유류의 재고가 (-)가 되는 상태에서 판매가 이루어졌다는 모순이 생기게 되는 점, ④ 중부지방국세청장이 실시한 DD에너지에 대한 세무조사 결과에도 개인사업자인 유류딜러가 거래처에 불법 유류 등을 공급하고 DD에너지 상호로 허위세금계산서를 발행ㆍ교부하였다는 내용이 조사되어 있고, DD에너지의 부장이었던 천승윤은 2008. 7. 25. 의정부지방법원고양 지원 2008고합160, 260(병합) 특정범죄가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반(조세) 등 사건의 검찰 조사에서도 거래주유소에서 DD에너지 법인계좌로 유류대금이 입금되면 무자료유류 중간상을 매개로 하여 무자료유류가 공급되었다는 취지로 진술한 사실, ⑤ 위 심EE은 2006. 11.경부터 2007. 1.경까지 DD에너지의 유류를 원고에게 납품하였다는 점을 확인한다는 내용의 확인서를 원고에게 작성해 준바 있고, AA에너지주식회사의 유류를 운송하는 차량기사 이기원은 2006. 11. 6., 같은 달 20., 2006. 12. 19. 및 2007. 1. 9. 총 4회, 같은 차량기사 정형범은 2006. 11. 27., 2006. 12. 6., 같은 달 10., 같은 달 22., 같은 달 28., 2007. 1. 16. 및 같은 달 23. 총 7회, 같은 차량기사 전병호는 2007. 1. 9. 각 원고에게 유류를 실제로 운송하였다는 내용의 확인서를 원고에게 작성해 준 바 있으며, 당시 원고는 위 차량기사들로부터 AADD에너지주식회사 발행의 출하지가 인천저유소로 되어 있는 출하전표(갑 제8호증의 1 내지 12)를 수령한 것으로 보이는 사실, ⑥ DD에너지 대표이사 최GG는 의정부지방법원고양지원 2007고합121 특정범죄가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반(허위세금계산서교부 등) 사건에서 원고에게 발행ㆍ교부한 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 허위로 발행ㆍ교부되었다는 내용으로 처벌받지는 않은 점 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 이러한 여려 사정에 비추어 보면, 위에서 살펴본 이정섭의 확인서나 의심스러운 정황만으로는 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 실물거래 없는 허위세금계산서라고 단정하기는 어렵고, 달리 이 사건 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 허위의 세금계산서라고 볼만한 증거가 없다.

Therefore, the part on the premise that each of the dispositions of this case is false tax invoices received without real transaction is illegal.

(d) Justifiable tax amount;

If a reasonable tax amount payable by the Plaintiff is calculated with the exception of the portion imposed by the Defendants by deeming each of the instant tax invoices as false, among each of the instant dispositions, (i) global income tax, etc. for fiscal year 2006; (ii) global income tax, etc. for fiscal year 2007; (iii) global income tax, etc. for fiscal year 32,344,880; (iv) value-added tax for fiscal year 2006 as value-added tax for fiscal year 4,352,882; and (v) value-added tax for fiscal year 2007 as value-added tax for fiscal year 543,494 (see, e.g., [Attachment] for correction of value-added tax for fiscal year 207; and (v) the portion exceeding

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.