Early High Court Decision 201J 1662 (Law No. 107.07)

The plaintiff cannot recognize good faith and negligence in receiving a different tax invoice from the fact that the plaintiff entered the oil supplier.

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the entry of the oil supplier constitutes a tax invoice, and the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence cannot be recognized in light of the fact that the oil temperature, weight, density, etc. has been omitted in the shipment slips received by the Plaintiff, that the Plaintiff was supplied low-value oil, and that the Plaintiff has long been engaged in the oil distribution industry.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011. Revocation of imposition of value-added tax

Park XX

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

June 28, 2012

August 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first period of February 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 201 and KRW 000 of value-added tax for the second period of February 2009, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From December 25, 2004, the Plaintiff engaged in the retail business with the trade name of 'x gas station' in the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and transferred the place of business on February 6, 2009 to 81-3, the Plaintiff changed the name of the place of business from 2004 to 'Songcheon-gu So-gu So-gu So-gu So-gu So-gu So-called So-called 'Seosung station' (hereinafter referred to as 'the instant gas station') and operated the retail business.

B. The Plaintiff received four copies of the tax invoice from the O Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O Energy”) in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009 (hereinafter “O Energy”), and returned the value-added tax by deducting the said supply value from the input tax amount. ② In the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, the Plaintiff received three tax invoices of KRW 000 from O Energy, and deducted the said supply value as the input tax amount, thereby filing the value-added tax return (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”).

C. On February 1, 2011, the Defendant denied the input tax deduction by deeming the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice, and issued the instant disposition that revised and imposed value-added tax as stated in the purport of the claim against the Plaintiff.

D. On April 22, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 22, 201, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 5, 201, and the said claim for adjudication was dismissed on July 7, 2011 while the instant lawsuit is pending.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 16, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice by supplying the actual oil from the OE and received the instant tax invoice, and thus, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice. Even if the entries are different from the facts, the instant tax invoice constitutes a purchase tax invoice that is deducted when the transaction between the parties is verified under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60(2)2 and 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act. The instant disposition denying the input tax deduction of the instant tax invoice by expanding and analogically interpreting the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes even when the Defendant confirms the actual transaction between the Plaintiff and the OOE.

(2) Under the Value-Added Tax Act, there is no basis to view that all transactions between the seller and his prior customer are genuine and require the seller to do so, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case on the premise of this premise is unlawful in violation of the taxation requirements legal principle and the clearness principle, and even if the above good faith is demanded to the domestic oil buyer, the plaintiff was found to have started such transactions after visiting the OE's office in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, as well as the OEO Energy's office in Y-gu, Sungnam-si, and the OEO's storage place in Ma-gu, So-si, So-si, as well as the OE's business registration certificate (general agency), petroleum retail business (general agency), the certificate of registration certificate, the copy of the account of this corporation, and the name of BB, etc., and the plaintiff did not receive the above good faith from the OE's account at the time of the trade.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether false tax invoices and actual transactions are verified

The meaning that entries in a tax invoice under the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008 and Act No. 10409 of Dec. 27, 2010) are different from the facts, refers to cases where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is subject to taxation, is nominal, and there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, and where there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment in accordance with the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the necessary entries in a tax invoice shall apply to cases where the necessary entries in a tax invoice do not coincide with those in a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10

In addition to the above evidence and evidence in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including each number), the whole arguments were examined. ① The oil of the tax invoice of this case was supplied from O-Energy and O-Energy Co., Ltd. on the documents in the order of the plaintiff. The oil of the Central Tax Office was confirmed as a material company that processed all of the sales tax invoice without real transaction and the related person was accused. O-Energy was confirmed as a material company that did not possess or rent oil storage facilities or transportation equipment. ② The oil shipment of oil of the oil of this case was not the plaintiff, O-Energy, and Maget. Furthermore, among its customers or destination companies, it was not possible to find the company that sold oil to them, ③ The evidence that the plaintiff could not be found to be found to have violated the above domestic tax office's duty to make a statement and the evidence that the plaintiff could not have made a statement against the witness's witness's testimony at the time of investigation.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that O energy did not have the capacity to supply oil of the tax invoice of this case. Thus, since O energy did not have the capacity to supply oil of this case, the person who supplied it to the plaintiff shall be deemed to be a third party, not O energy. Thus, the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice stating that the third party supplied oil, but the supplier supplied oil otherwise constitutes an "tax invoice entered differently from the fact under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act" and it cannot be deemed that the actual transaction between the plaintiff andO energy was confirmed. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault or not

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount 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 name of the tax invoice, and that the person who was provided with the tax invoice was not negligent in not aware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the said name, the person who asserted the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including each number), the plaintiff confirmed the certificate of registration of O energy business operator and the certificate of registration of petroleum retail business, etc. while he was supplied with O energy, and delivered the tax invoice, shipment slips, and transaction specifications, respectively, and immediately after the plaintiff was supplied with the oil, the plaintiff transferred the oil amount to the O Energy bank account. On the other hand, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by adding the whole arguments to the above evidence. However, the pre-delivery table issued and issued by the plaintiff was hard to verify that the oil was traded through normal distribution routes, but it was hard to find that the plaintiff did not request or receive it, and that the plaintiff purchased the oil from O energy supply by 20 years from 00 to 20 years from 000, and that the plaintiff did not directly purchase the oil from O200 to 30 years from 200,000 won from the average market price.

3. Conclusion

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