Early High Court Decision 2013J 113 (O5, 2013)

It is difficult to regard it as a bona fide trading party who has fulfilled the fiduciary duty.

In full view of the fact that there is no storage facility or a self-owned vehicle and there is no actual place of business, and that there is no fact of keeping or checking shipment slips issued by the first (unauthorized storage place, etc.) in the purchase place, it is difficult to see it as a bona fide trading party with the duty of due care of a good manager.

Articles 16 and 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap20036 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

IsaA

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 2, 2014

August 20, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first period of October 2, 2008 against the plaintiff on October 2, 2012 by the former defendant working for the Gu office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff operated the “CC gas station” in O-type OO-type 422-4, and closed the business around June 2010.

B. Upon reporting the first value-added tax in 2008 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount based on the purchase tax invoice issued by D P P PP, EE Energy, and FF (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) under the premise that the Plaintiff was supplied with oil from D P PP, Inc. (hereinafter “D”), EE Energy (hereinafter “E Energy”), and FF (hereinafter “F”).

C. On October 2, 2012, the Defendant decided not to deduct the input tax amount of value-added tax from the output tax amount on the grounds that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, and issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax) in 2008 as a tax thereafter (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 0, 2013, but the said appeal was dismissed on October 0, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice, but a false tax invoice.

Even if the above tax invoice is a tax invoice written differently from the supplier, the Plaintiff did not know that the actual supplier of the oil was different from the supplier’s entry in the tax invoice, and did not know that it was not negligent.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount if the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts. It refers to a case where the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc., the actual supply of the goods or services, or the price and time of the goods or services are supplied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 201); Article 200 of the former Tax Act provides that the Plaintiff’s entry in the tax office is not found to have been found to have been found to have been 0 or less than 200O's original supply price of the goods or services.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

Where a supplier and an actual supplier are different from those indicated in a tax invoice, an input tax amount pursuant to the tax invoice cannot be deducted or refundable unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was not negligent, shall be attested by the party asserting the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002; 209Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009; 201Du221

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

Each evidence mentioned above, evidence No. 7-3 through 13, evidence No. 9-2, and evidence No. 10-3

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff was actually supplied with oil and the price therefor.

D. Deposit in a deposit account in the name of Dpetro, EE Energy, and F, the Plaintiff’s District Court

On October 00, 2013 from the inspection of the O branch office, the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act related to the instant tax invoice;

It is recognized that a non-prosecution disposition was issued by a non-prosecution disposition on suspicion of the violation (influence of evidence).

B. The whole of the arguments in each of the evidences mentioned above, Gap evidence No. 10-8, 12, and Eul evidence No. 5

Comprehensively considering the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s business:

Although it is alleged that the location of the office was directly confirmed, Kim Jong-soo who is a business director in the course of investigating the suspect of the offense.

J Visits to the workplace and began transactions. D. D. S. business place was first conducted.

were known through a copy of a self-registration certificate. D. D. P.C. substantially prevents the workplace or the oil reservoir.

(2) The Plaintiff’s workplace of Dpetro, EE Energy, and F

It appears that no verification is made on the location, location, etc. of the oil reservoir.

(3) When investigating the suspect of the violation, the Plaintiff: (a) “The GimJ is a legal entity name of the Dpetro, EE Energy, and F.

Unlike others, it was stated that it was actually the same enterprise, and as the plaintiff, the plaintiff was the plaintiff.

D. It is sufficiently known that Dpetro, EE Energy, and F are not a real supplier.

(4) O points and temperature in Dopet-ro Dopet-ro all shipping slips to Dpet-ro Dopet-ro.

12°C, weight/group 826, all EE Energy Issue EE-Powers are marked as the shipment points.

The shipment slips are marked as "the time of shipment," "the 23°C, the weight of which is 826".

It is not stated above, and the place of shipment is not stated accurately, and the temperature and proportion are equal equally.

As stated above, the entry is omitted, and ⑤ The plaintiff is related to the tax invoice of this case.

prosecutor of the OO branch office of the District Prosecutors' Office concerning the crime committed in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act;

(Non-prosecution of Evidence) The sole fact that a non-prosecution disposition was issued shall not be deemed to have been negligent on the part of the Plaintiff.

In light of the fact that there is no room for the Plaintiff to do so, the only fact that the Plaintiff required is Dpetro, EE Energy, and F.

Recognizing that there was no negligence on the part of a person who was unaware of the fact of false name.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.