The early 2012 middle 5170

Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

The instant tax invoice is true and calendar tax invoice, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide trading partner.

Value-Added Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2014Guhap5145 Such revocation as Value-Added Tax, etc.

*

Head of Ansan Tax Office et al.1

October 6, 2015

November 14, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax against the director of the tax office for interest in the Si

(n).

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The head of Ansan Tax Office’s imposition of KRW 100,185,90 for the first term portion of 201 against the Plaintiff on August 6, 2012, and KRW 95,81,81 for the second term portion of 2011 and KRW 3,296,720 for global income tax for the year 201 and KRW 2,329,670 for the local income tax for the year 201 against the Plaintiff on August 7, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff operated a gas station from Apr. 1, 2010 to Jun. 1, 2010 with the trade name, “new** gas station,” and the total value of supply from Jun. 1, 201 to Jun. 1, 201, the supply price of KRW 163,618,00 (the first period in 201), middle * Petroleum (the representative*) (the first period in 201), and the supply price of KRW 30,182,00 (the first period in 201), Dae Energy* from Jun. 1, 201

79,763,00 won (i.e., the first period 391,945,000 won in 201 + each purchase tax invoice of KRW 171,272,00 (hereinafter referred to as "each tax invoice of this case") from the second period 407,81,00 in 201; and (ii) from the second period 171,272,000 in 200 (the second period in 201) was issued. The Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount under each of the tax invoices of this case from the output tax amount, filed a value-added tax return for the pertinent taxable period with the head of Ansan Tax Office, and filed a global income tax return for the period of 2011 to the head of Sinsan Tax Office by including the said supply amount in necessary expenses.

B. However, the Defendants determined that each of the instant tax invoices issued by Cheongsung Co., Ltd. constitutes a disguised entrepreneur who issued false tax invoices without real transactions as a result of the tax investigation, and that each of the instant tax invoices received by Cheong* Co., Ltd. was also different from the facts. Defendant Ansan Tax Office’s failure to deduct the input tax amount for the pertinent transaction portion on August 6, 2012, and the Plaintiff was the first installment of the year

A value-added tax amounting to KRW 100,185,90, and value-added tax amounting to KRW 95,816,380 for the second period of 2011, respectively. The head of Silung Tax Office, on August 7, 2012, applied the rate of additional tax for the portion of the pertinent transaction to the Plaintiff by applying the rate of additional tax for the portion of the transaction in question, 23,296,720, and local income tax for the year 2011.

2,329,670 won was corrected and notified respectively (hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant dispositions").

C. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with each disposition of the instant case and filed an objection with the Tax Tribunal on November 16, 2012.

However, on May 29, 2014, the above claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of imposition of local income tax is legitimate

Ex officio, we examine the legality of the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,329,670 on the local income tax of 2011 against the head of the Silung Tax Office.

Articles 85 subparagraph 3 and 87 of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014)

According to Paragraph (1) and Article 93(1), (2), and (5), local income tax is a local tax that shall be paid to the head of the local government having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax, and where the head of the tax office collects income tax by means of an imposition and notice in accordance with the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, even if the amount of income tax (the local income tax based on the amount of income tax payable according to the income tax) is imposed and notified together, it shall be deemed that the head of the local government concerned imposes and notifies it. Therefore, an appeal seeking revocation of imposition of local income tax against

Therefore, the part of the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,329,670, which reverts to year 201, against the Defendant who is not qualified as the Defendant, is unlawful as it is against the non-qualified person.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Since the Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil from Cheong* Company, etc. and accordingly received each of the instant tax invoices, each of the instant tax invoices is different from the facts.

2. The Plaintiff’s each disposition of the instant case by the Defendants is unlawful on a different premise, as it constitutes a transaction party with good faith and negligence, since the Plaintiff was supplied oil without knowing that Cheong*, etc. was a disguised business operator even though it fulfilled the duty of care as a transaction party at the time of purchase of oil.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is different from the facts

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. The meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is only nominal and there is a separate person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer and the other person to whom it applies tax law. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole comprehensively considering the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 11 (including virtual numbers)'s respective statements in the above legal principles, namely, ① each of the tax invoices of this case was revealed as a disguised businessman established for the purpose of issuing a false tax invoice without real transactions because most of the tax invoices received in the course of oil transactions in 2011 were verified as a processing transaction, etc. ② in the case of Cheong commercial, Cheong commercial, Co., Ltd., Ltd., * *, Large Energy, * * Co., Ltd., Ltd., as an oil agent, the oil storage tank, oil transport vehicle, etc. were not owned at all, and Jung Petroleum Co., Ltd., * temporarily leased oil storage facilities but did not actually have been stored, stored, stored, or shipped out * Jung Petroleum representative * The representative of this case stated to the effect that the Plaintiff et al. issued a false sales tax invoice without real transactions to its customers * the Plaintiff's actual supply of the above tax invoice *.

.

2) Whether the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence are recognized

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice either knew the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the said name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277,

Furthermore, in the event that there are sufficient circumstances to suspect who is the actual supplier in light of the details of the issuance and issuance of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services provided, the specific route and process of the supply of the goods or services, and the name of the supplier of the tax invoice, the recipient would have been the place of business of the nominal supplier; or

It is difficult to view that there is no negligence on the part of the actual supplier without confirming the business facilities, etc. and confirming the supplier's business registration certificate, etc.

B) Based on the above legal principle, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s failure to know the fact that each of the tax invoices of this case was nominal, and whether there was no negligence due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know it, solely on the basis of each of the items of health care room and evidence Nos. 5 to 13 (including the serial number),

There is no evidence to prove.

Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of Eul evidence 2 through 11 (including paper numbers), the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 7 through 9 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings:

(1) In other words, the normal distribution process is that the shipment slips issued at the time of shipping the oil at the oil reservoir.

The plaintiff is an important material proving that oil is traded, and the plaintiff is Cheong commercial and

*The normal circulation of each ‘sale and acceptance certificate' received from petroleum as the shipment slips.

The temperature of oil to confirm whether or not the temperature is not stated, and all shipping volume and proportion are equally stated, and each shipment slips delivered by the plaintiff to * Energy Co., Ltd., * * * Co., Ltd. do not contain card numbers, tank numbers, sulfur content, etc.

The fact that it is difficult to view it as an shipment slip issued and received in the normal course of distribution, and ② the Plaintiff is supplied with oil in an amount of less than 20-25 won per liter, etc. than normal supply prices.

In addition, a transaction without sufficiently verifying whether the source of the relevant oil, * commercial matters, etc. are equipped with physical facilities for oil transactions, such as oil storage facilities and oil transport vehicles;

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff knew that each of the tax invoices of this case was false or paid attention to it, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff could have sufficiently known that each of the tax invoices of this case was prepared by falsity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the cancellation of the imposition of local income tax against the head of the defendant Si interest tax office among the lawsuit of this case

The part sought is unlawful and dismissed, and each remaining claim against the Defendants by the Plaintiff is also dismissed.

Therefore, all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.