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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax on the first term portion of 2008 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2010 and the first term portion of 2008, the second term part of 2008, the first term part of 2009, the second term part of 2009, the first term part of 2009, the second term part of 2009, and the imposition of corporate tax on the OOO for the business year of 2008, and each disposition on the OOO for the business year of 2009 shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is also operating a gas station with the trade name of "BB gas station" from O-O in O-O of O-O of O-O, as a company established for the purpose of engaging in the business of selling petroleum and petroleum products.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice fromCC, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) as described below, and reported and paid the value-added tax and corporate tax to the Defendant.

[Attachment] (Unit: 1,00 won)

Place of transaction;

Issuer

208

1.

208

2nd class

209

1.

209

2nd class

Total

Head Office

CCRRR

OOO

OOO

Bank DaD Petroleum Chemical

OOO

OOO

Bank E-Energy

OOO

OOO

Bank FBF Energy

OOO

OOO

OOO

The Bank of Korea shall have the GGR

OOO

OOO

The HH Energy Corporation

OOO

OOO

Bank II MUBE

OOO

OOO

JJ-Energy

OOO

OOO

The KFFRRR

OOO

OOO

KUBL LUR

OOO

OOO

Bank MM

OOO

OOO

LABN

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

BBBL station

Bank PP Energy

OOO

OOO

QQQ㈜

OOO

OOO

RRRRRRRR

OOO

OOO

LABS Energy

OOO

OOO

Bank TTBE

OOO

OOO

Total

OOO

OOO

C. The Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and confirmed that the transaction partners recorded in the issuer column (hereinafter “each of the transaction partners of this case”) had been investigated as data as a result of the tax investigation conducted by the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and that the tax invoice of this case was issued without real transactions, and notified the Defendant of the result of the investigation.

D. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant issued a revised and notified each of the total amount of the value-added tax on the first term portion of the tax invoice in 2008 and the second term portion of the tax invoice in 2008, the second term portion of the tax invoice in 2009, the first term portion of the tax invoice in 2009, the second term portion of the value-added tax in 2009, and the second term portion of the tax invoice in 2009, the OOOO and the second business year of 2008, and the OOOO and the second business year of 2009, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 25, 2011, but was dismissed on December 23, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

1) Since the Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil from each of the instant transaction parties and was engaged in normal transaction, such as issuing a tax invoice, the instant tax invoice is not different from the facts.

2) Even if an oil supplier supplied to the Plaintiff is not a business partner of the instant case as indicated in the instant tax invoice, but the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know that the oil was supplied from the other business entity. In trading with each business partner of the instant case, the Plaintiff confirmed whether the Plaintiff was registered as a business operator, whether the petroleum sales business was permitted, whether the petroleum products handled in the corporate deposit passbook, and whether the petroleum products handled are normal, and there was no negligence.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

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

The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts, refers to cases where the necessary entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the entity that actually supplies or is supplied with goods or services, and the price and time of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in the Evidence Nos. 3 through 8, and No. 2 as to the instant case, each of the instant transaction parties can be sufficiently recognized that only the so-called data issued by the processing tax invoice is the person who has not actually supplied oil to the Plaintiff. Thus, the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff from each of the instant transaction parties is different from the facts by the supplier under Article 16 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and it is reasonable to view that the necessary entry under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act constitutes a case different from the facts. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part against the contrary is without merit.

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

An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact of misrepresentation of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff was actually supplied with oil and deposited the price in the deposit account in the name of each customer of this case. The plaintiff could verify the business registration certificate prior to the commencement of transaction with each customer of this case and the copy of passbook under the name of each customer of this case. However, the above circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing that each customer of this case was merely an agent supplying oil, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the whole purport of the statement and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 7, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to perform the ordinary duty of care required in the related industry even if he did not know that each customer of this case was not the actual supplier of oil at the time of issuance of the tax invoice of this case. This part of the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

① The Plaintiff was supplied with oil from a mutual influor through a motor vehicle purchase with oil, such as transfer sets, to UU.S., and transferred the proceeds of the sale through a sear, and confirmed the product shipment slips (hereinafter referred to as “ship shipment slips”) after receiving oil from the transport engineers transporting the oil.

② If the oil supply is normally performed, the shipment slips are important data to confirm that the oil is traded through the normal distribution channel because the oil is moved from the oil refinery to the oil station. Drawers and transport engineers traded with the Plaintiff confirm whether the oil is oil oil due to the oil due to the normal distribution channel. After recovering the shipment slips issued by the oil refinery without any special reasons, they issued and issued the shipment slips in the name of each of the parties to the instant case, and the aforementioned shipment slips were compared with the shipment slips issued by the oil refinery, and the orderer and destination difference.

③ In addition, the normal shipment slip issued by the oil refinery was issued by the Plaintiff, when the volume of oil was changed according to temperature and density, the time of publication was stated in the first unit, and the temperature and density were accurately stated, and the shipment price was stated in the shipment price list in Chapter 37, which the Plaintiff received from the FF Energy, did not have any description of the oil temperature, density and approved person, shipper, shipping time and destination, and the Plaintiff did not undergo the verification procedure by collecting the oil sample and obtaining the signature of the transport vehicle number and the transport engineer. However, this method alone is also obvious that the Plaintiff could not confirm the actual supplier of the relevant oil.

④ Since around 1989, the Plaintiff was running a retail business for petroleum products between about 25 years and around 1989, the Plaintiff had been sufficiently aware of the normal structure and distribution route of the oil supply, the general form and method of trade in the oil industry, and the circumstances and risks of trade in data widely spread in the industry. Accordingly, each of the transaction parties of the instant case seems to have been aware of, or to have been relatively easily aware of, such information.

3. Conclusion

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