December 15, 2012

The tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice which is entered falsely by the supplier.

The tax invoice of this case issued by the Plaintiff is a false tax invoice which is different from the fact that the supplier has entered false matters, and the good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2013Guhap2359

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

March 5, 2014

March 26, 2014

Note. Do.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax on the Plaintiff on May 2, 2012.

section 3.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 28, 1998 to March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff operated a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name called “CC gas station” from ○○○-dong 475-4 from around November 28, 1998.

B. In May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) that purchased via the total sum of supply value of KRW 00,000,000 from D Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DD”) during the 1st VAT taxable period, and filed a return of value-added tax including the input tax amount subject to deduction. The Defendant: (a) the Defendant constitutes the data on which DD Energy issues false purchase and sales tax invoices without real transactions; and (b) the instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from D Energy is also false tax invoices; and (c) on May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff denied the Plaintiff’s deduction of the input tax amount pursuant to the instant tax invoice; and (d) revised and notified the additional tax amount (including KRW 0,000,000) for the first-year period of 200 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 3, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on December 13, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was supplied with actual oil through the purchase of DD energy and oil normally, and received the instant tax invoice consistent with this, so the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as constituting a false tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Even if the DD Energy, the issuer of the instant tax invoice for household affairs, does not correspond to the actual supplier of oil, the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide trading party with the best duty of care and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

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

A) In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if the entries of a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts, it shall be deemed that the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer, and the person to whom it actually supplies the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, it shall be deemed that the necessary entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier, the person to whom the goods or service is supplied, the value, and the timing of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Furthermore, the person to whom the value-added tax is to be paid shall be deemed that the person who actually performs the transaction of the goods or service to the person who actually receives the goods or service from the supplier, not the entrepreneur under the nominal legal relationship with the entrepreneur.

되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① EE지방국세청은 DD에너지에 대하여 2개 과세기간(2009. 7. 10.~2010. 3. 31.)의 유류 유통과정 추적조사를 한 결과, 실물거래 없이 가공으로 세금계산서만 교부 및 수취한 것으로 판단하고 DD에너지를 자료상 혐의로 고발하였고, DD에너지 대표이사 QQQ은 2010. 12. 3. 참고인중지 처분을 받았던 점, ② EE지방국세청의 위 조사내용에 의하면, DD에너지의 사업장에는 유류 매출・매입과 관련된 일체의 서류가 없고 컴퓨터에 세금계산서, 거래명세표를 작성하는 프로그램 등 사업과 관련한 프로그램조차 없었으며, 원료 저장탱크는 유사석유제품 제조혐의로 고발된 업체의 지하탱크시설을 임차하였으나 그 저장소 내에는 산업폐기물이 적재되어 있는 등 이를 일절 사용한 사실이 없었던 점, ③ 이 사건 세금계산서의 유류와 관련한 정유사들의 출하전표에 기재된 거래처나 도착지가 이 사건 주유소나 DD에너지인 경우는 없었고, 나아가 그 거래처나 도착지 업체가 DD에너지에게 유류를 판매하였다는 자료도 찾아볼 수 없는 점, ④ DD에너지의 주 매입처인 주식회사 RR은 매입・매출 전액이 가공거래로 확인되어 완전자료상으로 고발조치된 업체로서 다수의 차명계좌 등을 개설하여 매출처로부터 거래대금이 입금되면 즉시 또는 경유계좌를 거쳐 전국 각지에서 현금으로 인출되는 등 가공거래를 해왔던 점, ⑤ DD에너지가 발행한 이 사건 출하전표에는 통상 정유사가 발행하는 출하전표와 달리 모두 출하시간이 일 단위로만 기재되어 있고 온도, 밀도, 황함량 등 일부 기재가 누락되어 있으며, 2010. 1. 29. 출하 전표의 경우 도착지 또한 이 사건 주유소의 주소가 아닌 다른 주소가 기재되어 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 실제로 이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 유류를 원고에게 공급한 자는 DD에너지가 아닌 제3자이고, 다만 DD에너지는 원고와 제3자 사이에 이루어진 실물 거래에 관하여 세금계산서 등 필요한 자료를 구비하여 준 것으로 봄이 상당하다. 따라

As the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice different from the fact stated by the supplier, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

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

A) In light of the fact that the actual supplier and the supplier of the oil on the tax invoice did not know of the name of the supplier, and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact, barring any special circumstances, the supplier could not deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the above name, the supplier could prove the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the sale price of the oil at issue.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.