Cheongju District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-10690 ( October 16, 2017)

Cho Jae-2015- Daejeon-3802 ( October 15, 2016)

The plaintiff does not belong to the trading party with good faith and negligence.

The purchase tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and the plaintiff does not constitute a transaction party with good faith and negligence.

Articles 16 and 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

(Cheongju)Revocation of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

】 】

○ Head of tax office

July 19, 2017

August 30, 2017

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 ○○○ (including additional tax) on June 1, 2015 against the plaintiff on June 1, 2015 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the statement in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(a)On the sixth paragraph 5, the following parts shall be added to "no evidence":

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as seen above, the fact finding reply to the Do Governor to the first instance court, the Do Governor issued a certificate of registration of petroleum retail business to the Do Governor, the public officials in charge visit the store, office, transportation equipment, etc. to directly verify the oil reservoir, office, etc. In light of the fact that the Do Governor reported the virtual energy periodically every month as one company, if the Do Governor deemed that the Do Governor had established the virtual energy as the real petroleum supplier, the Plaintiff merely one individual was negligent in determining the Do Governor as the real company with trust in the certificate of registration of the virtual energy issued by the Do Governor and the records of the transactions of the Korea Do Gas Association. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was the real supplier of the instant petroleum without fault merely because the public official in charge of the Do Governor actually visited the place of business at the time of the first instance court's inquiry, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was the real supplier of the instant product, based on the fact finding that the Plaintiff was the real supplier of the instant oil.

(b) In Part VII, the phrase “(see subparagraph 3-5 of the evidence No. 3-5)” is understood as “(see subparagraph 3-5, subparagraph 9 of the evidence No. 3-5, and subparagraph 9 of the evidence No. 7).”

2. 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.