Even if the facts were not known, it is reasonable to deem that there was negligence.

Even if the Plaintiff, who operated the gas station, knew that he was not a person who actually supplied the oil, or was unaware of such fact, it is reasonable to deem that there was negligence.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap16474 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Park AA

The director of the tax office

July 24, 2013

October 16, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

"The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax OOO (including additional tax OOOO) imposed on the plaintiff on February 2, 2012 by the defendant is revoked (" February 1, 2012 stated in the written complaint seems to be a clerical error in the written complaint on February 2, 2012)," and the reasons therefor.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. From July 1, 199 to OO, the plaintiff operated the gas station (hereinafter in this case's oil station) with the trade name "B gas station" from 273 (Odong) to O, "B gas station" (hereinafter in this case's oil station)", "B. The plaintiff received two copies of tax invoices of OOOO won during the second taxable period of the value-added tax (hereinafter in this case's tax invoice), and filed a return of value-added tax including the input tax amount subject to deduction." (c) "The defendant denied the input tax deduction on February 2, 2012 by viewing that the tax invoice in this case is a processed tax invoice, and received a decision of dismissal from the Director of the Regional Tax Tribunal on February 2, 2009 to OOO (including additional tax OOO) again, but the plaintiff was subject to the same decision of dismissal on February 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was supplied with actual oil fromCC energy and received the instant tax invoice. Thus, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Even if the actual supplier of oil is not theCC energy, the Plaintiff was unaware of it, and there was no negligence in not knowing it, and thus, the instant disposition was 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) If a taxpayer liable to pay value-added tax proves that a tax invoice submitted as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared in a false way without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and thus, the tax office’s substantial proof of whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is considerably false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and documentary evidence, should prove that it was actually traded with a supplier listed in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

In addition, a tax invoice shall be issued by an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed to be a person who actually receives goods or services or who actually performs transactions of supplying goods or services to a supplier rather than a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

(B) According to the evidence and evidence evidence set forth above and evidence set forth in Eul evidence No. 7, the oil of the tax invoice of this case was supplied in the order of the plaintiff in CC energy and CC energy on the documents of the Central Tax Office DD (hereinafter "DD"). DD verified as a material company issued by DD without real transaction all of its sales tax invoices, and it was confirmed as a material company that CC energy had no oil storage facilities or transportation equipment owned or leased, and the tax invoice of this case was confirmed as a material company without real transaction. The taxpayer or destination of the tax invoice of this case did not appear to have been the oil supplier of CC, and it is difficult to find that the supplier of CC's representative director of CC at the time of the tax investigation as to CC's oil was the oil supplier of this case's oil, and therefore, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff's tax invoice of this case did not actually have been issued by CC since the plaintiff's oil supplier of this case's oil had no choice but to have sold it.

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,

B) According to the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the pre-delivery table received by the Plaintiff after being supplied with the oil was not indicated with the temperature, density, and weight of the oil, and the issuer of the above pre-delivery table is acknowledged to have been stated asCC energy. Thus, the following circumstances revealed according to the above acknowledged facts are social problems: ① the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and non-data transactions are frequent, so it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier; ② the Plaintiff is a person operating the oil station; ② the Plaintiff is deemed to have been well aware of the normal supply structure and distribution route of the oil; ③ the Plaintiff’s normal supply type and method of the oil industry; ③ the Plaintiff’s provision of the pre-delivery chart was not so stated in the Plaintiff’s normal distribution route; ④ the Plaintiff’s provision of the pre-shipment temperature and the Plaintiff’s provision of the oil density to the Plaintiff without any special reason.

3. Conclusion

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