Suwon District Court 2013Guhap209 ( November 13, 2013)

early 2012 Middle 3320 ( December 27, 2012)

The disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount by deeming the issue tax invoice as a false tax invoice (oil) is legitimate.

In full view of the fact that △△△△ is an enterprise charged on the basis of storage facilities or data without a self-owned vehicle, and that no major entry is entered in the shipment slips related to the issues and tax invoices, it is difficult to accept the claim statement that the transaction related to the issues and tax invoices

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu31389. Disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AA Petroleum Co., Ltd.

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Guhap209 Decided November 13, 2013

July 23, 2014

August 27, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of the second-term value-added tax for the plaintiff on July 1, 2012, the second-term value-added tax for the year 2008, the first-term value-added tax for the year 2009, the second-term value-added tax for the year 2009, the first-term value-added tax for the year 2009, the first-term value-added tax for the year 2010, the OOO for the corporate tax for the business year 2008, the OO for the corporate tax for the business year 2009, and the OOO for the corporate tax for the business year 2010.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s particular emphasis or a new judgment on the assertion presented by this court, and as such, the reasoning of this court’s judgment is identical to that of the first instance court. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

"The so-called horizontal transaction of oil between oil distribution markets" was actual practice, and BB energy was supplied to the Plaintiff by using these forms of trade, and re-supplyed to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff was supplied with oil from BB energy by receiving oil from the Plaintiff and was lawfully purchased, the instant tax invoice is not false, but is not a tax invoice, and even if the actual supplier of oil was not BB energy, the instant disposition is unlawful because it was a bona fide transaction party who fulfilled the required duty of care even if the actual supplier was not a BB energy."

(6) The Plaintiff, upon considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court, supplied BB to the Plaintiff through BB energy without real transactions. The Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s supply of the oil was 9.1% of the oil storage facilities or transport equipment and 98.5% of the purchase was conducted by processing, and the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff’s oil did not go through any distribution process. The Plaintiff asserted that the 20th of the first instance court supplied the Plaintiff with the EEM listed on the BB list, instead of the 20th of the date of shipment. The Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the 20th of the fact that the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the E.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.