Daejeon District Court 2010Guhap216 (2010.08)

Review Division 2009-0104 (2010.05.04)

Whether a processing tax invoice without real transaction related to oil purchase has been received

In full view of the fact that the business partner did not distribute the actual oil, the actual oil is deemed to have been purchased from a third party when considering the fact that the transaction partner filed a complaint with the tax authority and the conviction was finalized, and the details of issuance of the shipment slip

2010Nu2140 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Guhap216 Decided September 8, 2010

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's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 91,083,990 against the plaintiff on June 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion in accordance with Section 8 (2) (A) of the first instance court's decision and addition of the evidence Nos. 19 through 23 of the first instance court's ruling (including each number if there is a provisional number) and the statement of the first instance court's ruling No. 10 of the first instance court's ruling is the same with the statement of the first instance court's ruling except for addition of the following without any necessary reason, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional matters;

【Although the tax invoice of KRW 456,90,09,090 for the supply value of the tax invoice received from △△ Energy is not a processing transaction but a nominal nominal transaction, each entry in the certificate of KRW 5,9,11,13, and 17 (including each serial number) is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice was entered in the name of the above tax invoice, and that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances revealed in the facts acknowledged earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff did not directly receive the forwarding slips at the time of receiving oil, but could have neglected to verify the authenticity of △ Energy and whether the actual supplier was in charge of abnormal transactions, such as receiving the forwarding slips under the name of △ Energy, along with the tax invoice. ② The Plaintiff received the forwarding slips without entry of △ Energy, and the forwarding slips were omitted, and the details of the forwarding slips were omitted; ③ the Plaintiff did not review the forwarding slips; ③ the Plaintiff was supplied with oil with the oil using the tank lorri vehicle that was not loaded at the lorri, and the number of the oil-transport vehicle listed in the forwarding slips was the vehicle number without inquiry results. In the abnormal oil trading, the Plaintiff did not have paid due attention, such as deeming the vehicle number compared with the shipping slips, and considering all the transaction circumstances and circumstances as seen earlier, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not know or did not know the false name of the said tax invoice even if he did not know the aforementioned facts.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.