Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2011Nu421 (Law No. 28, 2011)

early 209 middle 4244 (2010.06.29)

It is not sufficient to recognize that there was no negligence on the part of the issuer of the tax invoice due to failure to know the name of the issuer.

The fact that there was no negligence on the part of the tax invoice issuer's failure to know the fact that the tax invoice issuer's name was nominal shall be proved by the party claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that there was no negligence on the part of

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Du26695 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.

XX

The superintendent of the tax office

Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) Decision 2011Nu421 Decided September 28, 2011

March 29, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where a necessary entry of a tax invoice is entered differently from the fact. In such a case, the meaning that the requisite entry of a tax invoice is different from the fact refers to a case where the necessary entry of a transaction agreement between the parties to the goods or services does not coincide with the actual supplier, price, and time of the goods or services despite the formal entry of the transaction agreement, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax, the burden of proof on the facts requiring taxation exists under the imposing authority, but if it is presumed that the other party is unable to prove the circumstances subject to the application of the empirical rule in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process.

The court below determined that the Plaintiff purchased oil equivalent to KRW 327,294,545 on January 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) most of the sales tax invoices issued during the second period of 2006 by the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "P Energy") were processed; (b) the place of business of XX energy was discovered in the course of the transaction of data; (c) the sales and acceptance certificate issued by the Plaintiff as the shipment slip issued by the Plaintiff as the shipment slip at the oil reservoir is different; and (iv) the sales and acceptance certificate issued by the Plaintiff as the shipment slip issued by the Plaintiff are different from the fact that the Plaintiff purchased oil normally from the oil refinery Co., Ltd. from the Plaintiff on March 1, 2006 to March 31, 206; and (v) the Plaintiff purchased oil equivalent to KRW 327,294,545 from the Plaintiff on March 26, 2006.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to false tax invoices, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Unless there are special circumstances, a supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice in the name of the supplier, and that the person who received the other tax invoice is not negligent in not knowing the above fact in the name of the supplier (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not negligent due to the plaintiff's failure to know and failure to know the fact that the head of XX energy was the issuer of the tax invoice of this case. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.