Cho High 2013 Mine2231 (O6.24)

The purchase of oil at issue is not recognized as an obligatory tax invoice which is different from the fact.

The issue oil purchase constitutes a false tax invoice, and there was a negligence that did not confirm it despite the fact that there was a need to verify whether the other party to the transaction is a true tax invoice.

Jeonju District Court 2013Guhap200829 ( February 4, 2015)

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

July 16, 2014

4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff 1, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1”) established on March 1, 1991, 200, 200 ○○○○ 7.0 . 7% of the supply price of Plaintiff 1, 200 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 6 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 20 . 7 . 7 . 20 . 7 . 7 . 7 . 20 . 3 . 5 . 20 . 5 . 3 . 20 . 3 . 7 . 5 . 20 . 20 . 3 . 7 . 3 ,00 . 1 . 7 . 3 ,001 . 3 . . 7 20 . 3 . .

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) Since the Plaintiffs actually purchased oil from ○○○○○○NG and remitted the price to ○○○○○○G account, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed a false tax invoice. 2) Even if the instant tax invoice is false, the Plaintiffs confirmed the ○○○○○○G’s business registration certificate from the employee who delivers the transit, and received the shipment slips and transaction specifications, and thus, the Plaintiffs constitute a bona fide trading party who fulfilled their duty of care.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged:

1) ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was an oil wholesaler whose head office and branch offices were located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the following facts were confirmed as a result of the tax investigation on ○○○○○○○○G’s tax office. An oil storage tank located in ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, dong, ○○○○, which reported that ○○○○○○○○ was a petroleum storage facility when registering petroleum export-import business. There was no fact that ○○○○○○○○○, which was reported as an oil storage tank upon filing an application for registration of business. As to an oil storage tank located in ○○○○○○, on which ○○○○○ was reported upon filing an application for registration of business.

○○○○○ENG received oil equivalent to KRW 12,66,00,00 in supply price during the first taxable period in 201, and received a purchase tax invoice and filed a value-added tax return. However, A Energy Co., Ltd. and B Energy Co., Ltd., the principal business partner of ○○○○○EG, made transactions by means of cash transfer from ○○○○EG to other accounts immediately upon deposit of oil purchase price, and the transport engineers listed in the shipment slip stated that they did not transport oil from the above two companies; and A Energy Co., Ltd. was deemed as materials from ○○○ Tax Office. Accordingly, the Director of the Regional Tax Office established the total purchase amount during the first taxable period in 2011. The oil purchase amount that ○○○○○EG received from the seller was transferred to the ○○○○ENG immediately, and then transferred from each of the bank or the bank and the bank and the bank from each account to each account.

2) Based on the foregoing facts, the Director of the Regional Tax Office confirmed that ○○○○○○○○NG issued a false tax invoice without a real transaction, and confirmed the total amount of the first sale in 2011 as a processed sales, and accused ○○○○○○○ and the representative director’s distribution, and the actual businessman’s tea ○○○○ was suspected of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

3) Unlike the general shipment slips issued by ○○○○ ENG, the shipment slips issued by staticly similar entities have the temperature and weight, weight, card number, tank number, etc. as public columns.

4) The representative director of Plaintiff ○○○○’s ○○○○○, while manufacturing, collecting soil and rocks, or selling aggregate from 191 to 191, has endeavored to reduce the cost of the project, which is an important cost component item of the project cost, by carrying on a project that requires large quantities of light on the asphalt products and the construction machinery of aggregate transport vehicles. The representative director of Plaintiff ○○ ○○ is the company established around 2009, and the representative director of Plaintiff ○○ ○○ is the above ○○.

D. Determination

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

가) 부가가치세법상 세금계산서의 기재내용이 사실과 다르다는 의미는 과세 대상이 되는 소득, 수익, 재산, 행위 또는 거래의 귀속이 명의일 뿐 사실상 귀속되는 자가 따로 있는 때에는 사실상 귀속되는 자를 납세의무자로 하여 세법을 적용한다고 규정한 국세기본법 제14조 제1항의 취지에 비추어, 세금계산서의 필요적 기재사항의 내용이 재화 또는 용역에 관한 당사자 사이에 작성된 거래계약서 등의 형식적인 기재내용에 불구하고 그 재화 또는 용역을 실제로 공급하거나 공급받는 주체와 가액 및 시기 등과 서로 일치하지 않는 경우를 가리키는 것이고, 부가가치세 납세의무자가 매입세액 공제의 근거로 제출한 세금계산서가 실물거래 없이 허위로 작성되었다거나 세금계산서의 기재 내용이 사실과 다르다는 점이 과세 관청에 의해 상당한 정도로 증명되어, 그 것이 실지매입인지 여부 또는 세금계산서의 기재 내용의 진위가 다투어지고, 납세의무자가 주장하는 세금계산서에 기재된 공급자와의 거래가 허위임이 상당한 정도로 증명된 경우에는, 세금계산서에 기재된 공급자와 거래를 실제로 하였다는 점에 관하여 장부와 증빙 등 자료를 제시하기가 용이한 납세의무자가 이를 증명할 필요가 있다(대법원 1995. 7. 14. 선고 94누3407 판결, 대법원 1996. 12. 10. 선고 96누617 판결, 대법원 2009. 8. 20. 선고 2007두1439 판결 등 참조) 나) 위 법리에 비추어 원고들이 이 사건 세금계산서에 공급자로 기재된 ○○ENG 로부터 실제로 유류를 공급받았는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 든 증거에 갑 제4, 6, 7, 9, 12호증의 각 기재를 더하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ○○ENG는 2011년 제1기 과세기간 동안 실물거래 없이 세금계산서를 허위로 발행하여 온 자료상임이 밝혀져 검찰에 고발되었고, 2011년 제1기 과세기간 동안 매출액에 관하여는 전액 가공거래에 의한 것으로 확정된 점, 원고 ○산 및 원고 ○○아스콘은 모두 2011. 4. 30., 2011. 5. 17., 2011. 5. 31. ○○○ENG로부터 유류를 공급받았다고 주장하고 있는바, ○○○ENG는 A에너지나 B에너지로부터 실제로 매입한 유류가 없었고, 유류대리점으로서 필요한 유류저장탱크, 수송장비 등을 전혀 갖추고 있지 않거나 저장탱크 등을 임차한 경우에도 이를 이용하여 실제로 유류를 저장운송한 사실이 없었으며, 2011. 1. 1.부터 2011. 6. 30.까지 한국석유공사에 신고된 유류거래량도 전혀 없었으므로, 원고들이 위 각 일자에 ○○ENG로부터 실제로 유류를 공급받았다고 볼 수는 없는 점, 원고들은 ○○○ENG와 사이에 유류공급에 관한 계약서를 작성하지 않았고, 원고들이유류운송기사인 이○○를 통하여 교부받은 출하전표(갑 제6호증의 1 내지 6)는 위와 같이유류거래실적이 없는 ○○○ENG가 발행한 것인데다가 정상적인 출하전표와 달리 유류의 온도, 비중/그룹 등이 기재되어 있지 않고 발행시간, 환산수량, 중량, 탱크번호 등도 기재되어 있지 아니한 점, ○○○ENG가 2011. 4.경부터 같은 해 6.경까지 원고들에게 이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 유류를 공급하였다는 내용의 이○○ 작성의 사실확인서(갑 제12호증의 1, 2)는 이○○가 ○○○ENG로부터 유류운송 의뢰를 받고 원고들에게 유류를 운송하였다는 내용에 불과하여 위 내용만으로 유류를 공급한 실제 공급자가 ○○○ENG라고 단정하기 어려울뿐더러 이○○ 또한 거래의 당사자로 볼 여지가 있어 신빙성과 객관성을 인정하기 어려운 점, ○○○ENG가 원고들이나 개별주유소로부터 입금받은 금원은 ○○○ENG 명의의 농협 외 2개 계좌로 이체된 후 대부분 A에너지나 B에너지의 계좌로 이체되거나, ○○○ENG의 다른 법인계좌로 이체되었고, A에너지나 B에너지(이○○) 계좌로 이체된 금원은 대부분 점포를 분산하여 창구에서 현금으로 출금된 점 등을 종합하면, 원고들이 ○○ENG 명의의 농협계좌로 유류대금을 입금하였다는 내용이 기재된 갑 제4호증 및 갑 제6호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 12호증의 각 기재만으로는 원고들이 ○○○ENG로부터 이 사건 각 세금계산서상의 유류실물을 실제로 공급받았다고 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 이 사건 세금계산서는 그 공급자 등이 허위로 기재된 세금계산서에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다고 할 것이다. 따라서 이에 어긋나는 원고들의 주장은 위 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Determination as to the assertion of negligence on duty on the ship

A) In light of the above legal principles, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the 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 that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of the above fact of the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). (B) In light of the above legal principles, the fact that the Plaintiffs received the tax invoice and the shipment slip from the ○○○○○○NG and remitted oil amount to the account, and that the Plaintiffs were supplied oil amount through the transportation engineer such as this, but the Plaintiffs were not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the tax invoice issued by the ○○○○NG was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact, as seen below, there was no evidence to find otherwise.

Rather, given that ○○○○○○○○○○○ Industries’s supply structure of oil was complicated and frequent transaction using free oil, it is necessary to closely examine whether the Plaintiff’s oil supplier was the actual supplier. The Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○’s supply of oil was an important material to verify that the Plaintiff’s supply of the oil was traded through normal distribution channels. The Plaintiffs were supplied with the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○’s supply of the same type of oil to check whether the supply of the oil was an actual supplier. As such, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s supply of the oil was not carried out by the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s supply of the same type of oil through the verification of the supply of the oil. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s supply of the oil to the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○’s supply of the same type of oil through the verification of the supply of the oil was not carried out by the Plaintiff’s address and address.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.