National Viewing Examination Division 2012-0027 (Law No. 16, 2012)

When a oil supplier receives a tax invoice different from the fact, the plaintiff's good faith and negligence cannot be recognized.

In full view of the fact that the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact by the oil supplier, that the Plaintiff has operated the gas station for eight years, that the details of the shipment slip are defective, and that the supplier’s place of business has not been verified, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence cannot be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

IsaA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

November 20, 2012

January 22, 2013

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 of KRW 000 on September 6, 201 against the Plaintiff on September 6, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 17, 2001, the Plaintiff operated a gas station in the name of OOri 000 to 'O station', and the Plaintiff received three copies of the tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice in this case") in total from CC oil (hereinafter referred to as "CC oil") during the taxable period of value-added tax for the second period of value-added tax, and filed a value-added tax return including it in the input tax amount.

B. On September 6, 2011, the Defendant issued tax invoices to the Plaintiff without real transactions, and the instant tax invoices constitute a disguised processing and purchase tax invoice based on the following grounds: (a) the input tax amount for the transaction portion withCC oil was not deducted; and (b) on February 2009, the Defendant imposed a tax amount of KRW 000 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on March 8, 2012, but the said request was dismissed on April 16, 2012.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, and Eul evidence 1, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff actually purchased oil fromCC’s oil and received the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice. Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party inasmuch as the Plaintiff completed necessary confirmation and evidence expenses for the instant transaction. Therefore, the instant disposition issued by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

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

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services, where the contents of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier of the goods or services or the supplier of the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Whether the transaction partner who supplied the oil to the Plaintiff is the supplier under the tax invoice of this case. In full view of the entries in subparagraph 2, the issue of whether the transaction partner who supplied the oil in this case is the supplier under the tax invoice of this case is whether or not the supplier under the tax invoice of this case. (i) the whole arguments in subparagraph 2, and (ii) the facts that only the leased oil storage facility has not been used once, and (iii) the facts that theCC oil was not managed by the oil carrier or the preparation of the account book on the oil transaction.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and other suppliers on the tax invoice are not entitled to deduction or refund of the input tax invoice even if they were not aware of the actual names of the supplier, and that those who were supplied with the tax invoice were not aware of the fact that they did not know of the fact that they were shipped through the above names of the supplier, and that they did not know of the fact that they were shipped through the tax invoice or the actual shipping time before the date and time of their shipment, and that they did not know of the fact that they were shipped through the tax invoice or the actual shipping time before the date and time of their shipment, the Plaintiff did not appear to have any other evidence that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the actual shipping time and time provision of the tax invoice, and that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the actual shipping time and time provision of the invoice was made in the name of the supplier, and that there were no other evidence that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that the supplier did not know of the actual shipping time and time provision of the tax invoice or service.

3. Conclusion

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