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

Cheong-gu Office

On July 3, 2013, the Defendant revoked each imposition of value-added tax for the second quarter of 2009 against the Plaintiff, ○○○○○○, the value-added tax for the first quarter of 2010, and the value-added tax for the second quarter of 2010.

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator who operated BB station from March 12, 1994 to ○○○○, as ○○○○.

B. The Plaintiff received the tax invoice of KRW 234,963,637 from CC Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Petroleum”) in the second and second taxable periods of the value added tax in 2009, and the tax invoice of KRW 123,254,54,544 (hereinafter “each of the above tax invoices”) in 2010 from N Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N Energy”) during the second taxable periods of the value added tax, and reported and paid value added tax including the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On July 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a processed tax invoice; (b) denied input tax deduction; and (c) imposed upon the Plaintiff the value-added tax for the second period portion of the value-added tax for the year 2009; (b) KRW 00,000 for the first period of the year 2010; and (c) KRW 00,000 for the second period of the value-added tax for the year 2010

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 2, 2013, but was dismissed on December 10, 2013.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 7-3, Gap evidence 8-3, Gap evidence 9-2, Gap evidence 10-3, Gap evidence 11-3, Gap evidence 12-1, Gap evidence 13-1, Gap evidence 14-1, 5, Eul evidence 14-5, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Since the Plaintiff was actually supplied oil byCC Petroleum and NEnergy (hereinafter “the instant transaction party”) and received the instant tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the actual supplier of oil is not CC Petroleum and N Energy, the Plaintiff did not know it and did not know it, and thus, is a bona fide trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to whether the instant tax invoice is false or not

A) If a taxpayer of value-added tax proves that a tax invoice submitted as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared in a false way without a real transaction, or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and thus, the tax authority’s determination whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is considerably false, it is necessary for a taxpayer to prove that it is easy for him/her to present data, such as books and documentary evidence, regarding the fact that the transaction with the supplier stated in the tax invoice was actually conducted with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439

In addition, a tax invoice shall be issued from an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed to be a person who actually performs a transaction of supplying goods or services to a person who actually receives or is supplied goods or services, not from an entrepreneur who establishes a nominal legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence and evidence as mentioned above, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 12, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff was supplied oil under the tax invoice of this case by the transaction partner of this case, and the actual supplier of oil listed in the tax invoice of this case is bound to be deemed a third party, not the transaction partner of this case. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice stated by the supplier.

① As a result of the investigation of the ○○ regional tax office,CC petroleum business establishment did not scam in operating oil wholesale business; it did not use storage tanks in ○○○○-1 ○○○○-dong, reported as oil storage facilities or did not have access to the oil transport vehicle; Teo-il, Inc., a purchasing entity ofCC petroleum, was confirmed as data of the ○○ regional tax office’s investigation; and as a result, it was confirmed that the details of shipping petroleum toCC petroleum were omitted.

② Based on the above findings of the investigation, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ has deemedCC petroleum as a material company that issued all sales tax invoices without real trade without real trade, and filed an accusation againstCC petroleum and its representative director under suspicion of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) (the ○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office was in the state of suspending prosecution against TPP and taking measures for suspending CC petroleum as witnesses because the ○○ Public Prosecutor

③ As a result of the regional tax office’s tax investigation, LLS companies, stock companies, FF companies, etc., which are N Energy buyers, are determined on the data. In the case of NU storage, the NU storage, which is its own storage place of N Energy, there was no record of payment of electricity and rent. In the case of HH tank, there was no record of payment of contractual work cost (oil tea cost) compared to the quantity of oil shipped on the shipment slip. The N Energy shows a typical financial transaction form, such as immediately withdrawing funds deposited from the seller from the seller in cash or remitting funds to the processing buyer.

(4) LeeG, a representative of N Energy, was convicted of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoices), etc. including the criminal facts submitted by falsely stating a list of total tax invoices against the Plaintiff.

2) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount, unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in the name of the actual supplier and the person who received the other tax invoice, and the fact that the person who received the tax was not negligent in not knowing the above fact that the tax invoice was nominal shall be proved by the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun

B) Considering the aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 16, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was negligent even if he knew, or did not know, that the transaction partner was not the actual supplier of the oil. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

① Since the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and transactions without authentic documentation are frequent, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether an oil supplier is an actual supplier if an oil supplier is an ordinary gas station operator.

② Since the Plaintiff had operated a gas station for a long time, it seems that he was well aware of the normal supply structure and distribution channel of oil, etc., and was also aware of the actual conditions and risks of transaction on the data. If the Plaintiff asked about whether the oil was actually released on the relevant date by ascertaining the current status and location of the oil reservoir listed in the instant tax invoice and the shipment slip, and whether the oil was actually shipped out on the relevant date, it would have been easily known that the instant transaction partner did not actually know that the oil was shipped out.

③ In relation to the process of purchasing oil from the business partner of the instant case, the Plaintiff made a statement that it is low compared to the oil price directly purchased from the oil refinery. The profit of the wholesaler, etc. would be added to the oil price in the case of purchasing the oil through the intermediate wholesaler, etc. under generally accepted social norms. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to suspect the distribution process of the instant business partner who supplies oil at a lower price than the market price, or the possibility of defluence in the name of the transaction partner of the instant case, because it is more likely that the oil price would be lower

④ The Plaintiff received oil from the customer at the time of receiving the oil from the customer of the instant case not only the original of the shipment slip issued by the 4th similar oil, but also issued by the customer of the instant case, which is different from the usual distribution practices, and also does not state the time of shipment in the said shipment slip, and there are a majority of the shipment slips that do not state the temperature and proportion, and there seems to be sufficient circumstances to suspect whether the transaction partner of the instant case is the actual supplier. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff made an active effort to confirm whether the transaction partner of the instant case was the actual supplier of oil by visiting the business location of the customer of the instant case or oil storage facilities.

⑤ Even if the Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil and deposited the price into the account ofCC Petroleum and N Energy, it is merely a tool to disguised normal transaction in so-called “data transaction,” and it is difficult to find that there was no negligence due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know the disguised fact of the instant tax invoice solely on the basis of such circumstance.

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.