Whether the tax invoice complies with the facts is merely a fact-finding, not a legal itself, and not a subject of lawsuit for confirmation.

Whether a tax invoice complies with the facts is merely a fact-finding, not a legal relationship itself, and thus, it is not subject to litigation for confirmation. Even if it is confirmed, res judicata following the final and conclusive judgment against the losing party or litigation period may not be disputed due to the lack of dispute, and it does not constitute litigation

Administrative Litigation Act Article 3 (Classification of Administrative Litigation)

2016Guhap7583 Additional Tax Return and Confirmation Report

○ ○

Korea

November 25, 2016

January 13, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

From October 0, 2008 to October 0, 2010, the report of purchase tax invoice by each quarter of attached Form between the Defendant and BB Energy is confirmed to be different from the actual transaction.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who operates a gas station with the trade name called DD gas station in ○○○○○○○○ Dong, from around October 2008 to around October 201, received each purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “BB energy”) from the BB Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB Energy”), and filed a return and payment of each value-added tax by deducting 10% of each amount indicated in the separate sheet from the output tax amount in each taxable period of value-added tax, from the output tax amount in each taxable period of value-added tax.

B. However, the director of the CCC decided that the tax invoice received in 2008 and 2009, among the tax invoice in this case, was "tax invoice different from the fact that was issued without real transaction," and denied the deduction of each input tax amount at the time of the Plaintiff’s declaration, and accordingly, he corrected and notified the Plaintiff on October 201, 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2009, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, respectively (hereinafter “first disposition”). On October 201, 201, the director of the CCC corrected and notified KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 208 (hereinafter “the second disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the director of the CCC on October 0, 201, claiming the revocation of the instant first disposition, while claiming that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice that was actually delivered according to the real transaction. However, the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff’s failure judgment (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap0000, October 0, 2012; Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu0000, October 0, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 2013Du000, October 0, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2013Du000, Oct. 0, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2014Guhap000, Oct. 0, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du60060, Oct. 6, 2005).

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The tax invoice of this case was lawfully received through the actual oil transaction between the Plaintiff and BB Energy, but the director of the CCC did not err in holding the tax invoice and then rendered each disposition of this case. Ultimately, the disposition of this case, etc. violates the principle of no taxation without the law, and the Plaintiff is a benefit to obtain confirmation that the tax invoice of this case is "tax invoice corresponding to the fact that it was received through

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff simply seeks confirmation of facts.

On the other hand, the lawsuit for confirmation is permitted only when it is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain the judgment of confirmation against the defendant when the plaintiff is taking the judgment of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, Oct. 16, 1997). The facts not the plaintiff's rights or legal relations cannot be viewed as the subject of confirmation. The fact that the tax invoice of this case is "tax invoice that corresponds to the facts" is not the plaintiff's rights or legal relations itself, but it cannot be viewed as the subject of confirmation, and even if the plaintiff is confirmed as "tax invoice that corresponds to the facts", even if the tax invoice of this case is confirmed as "tax invoice that corresponds to the facts", it cannot be seen as the subject of confirmation, and thus, the lawsuit of this case and CCC's correction and disposition of the tax invoice of this case against the plaintiff cannot be seen as being unlawful since the period of res judicata or lawsuit due to the confirmation of the judgment of the plaintiff's failure or its legal relations with the plaintiff.

* Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act (Classification of Administrative Litigation)

Administrative litigation shall be classified into the following four categories:

1. An appeal litigation: A lawsuit filed against a disposition, etc. or omission by an administrative agency;

2. Party litigation: Litigation concerning a legal relationship based on a disposition, etc. of an administrative agency, and other legal relations under public law, in which either party to such legal relations is the defendant;

3. Public lawsuit: A lawsuit instituted by the State or a public organization to seek the correction thereof, regardless of its own legal interests, when the institution has committed an act in violation of Acts;

4. Agency litigation: A litigation instituted against a dispute over the existence or exercise of power between agencies of the State or public organizations, except for a litigation instituted against matters under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court under Article 2 of the Constitutional Court Act;

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.