early 201J 3097 ( December 21, 2011)

propriety of a disposition that deducts input tax amount by deeming it a false tax invoice;

In full view of the fact that oil is purchased from a customer identified in the data and it is difficult to recognize the actual transaction, and that the receipt and temperature column of the "non-medium and density" differently indicated at the time of shipment are the public column, it is judged as a false tax invoice.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

2012Guhap5221 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

United StatesA

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

December 19, 2013

February 20, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010, which was June 14, 2011, against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010, which was February 12, 2013, and the imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of 2010, respectively, revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 7, 2004 to August 8, 201, the Plaintiff operated a gas station under the trade name, i.e., OO-type OO-type 57-24 to BB gas station.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW OOO (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) fromCC (hereinafter “CC”) in 2010 for the first taxable period of value-added tax, and subsequently deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and filed a value-added tax return.C. The Defendant denied the input tax amount by deeming the instant tax invoice to be a tax invoice different from the private theory. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff imposed a value-added tax amount on the Plaintiff on the first taxable period of KRW OOO (=the principal tax + the additional tax OOOO) on the first taxable period of KRW 10,000, stating the amount of penalty tax and the basis for calculating the penalty tax amount on February 12, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), but the Plaintiff again imposed an additional tax OOO on the tax Tribunal on the first taxable period of KRW 10,010 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”), but dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 11, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

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

(2) Even if the actual supplier of oil is notCC, 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

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that “if any content of a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact, the ownership of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal, and there is a separate person to whom such content belongs, the person to whom such content belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer,” it refers to a case where the requisite content of the tax invoice does not coincide with the actual supplier of goods or service or the price and time of the supplier, regardless of the formal content of the transaction contract, etc. entered between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).” Furthermore, the person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed as a person who actually provided the goods or service to the Plaintiff, not a nominal legal relationship with the supplier or the supplier, and thus, constitutes a person who actually provided the goods or service with the supplier, who actually provided the goods or service, constitutes a person who actually provided the goods or service.

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

(A) Unless there is any special circumstance that an entrepreneur who actually supplies and a supplier different tax invoices are different from the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the name of the tax invoice was entered, and there is no negligence on the part of the supplier, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded. The burden of proving that the supplier was not negligent on the part of the supplier, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 197)

(B) According to the statement of evidence Nos. 9 and 14-16 (including paper numbers), the Plaintiff received a copy of the petroleum sales business registration certificate at the time of the transaction withCC, the name of the business operator in charge of the business registration certificate, etc., and the Plaintiff transferred the corresponding amount toCC account after being issued the instant tax invoice fromCC. However, considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s summary trading statement received fromCC, i.e., the type, quantity, transporter, and vehicle number merely stated only the kind of the oil, and it is difficult to view it as a normal shipment list due to insufficient facts, such as the arrival of the Plaintiff’s supply of the oil in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the location of the place of destination or oil. (ii) Considering that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff could have compared the type of the oil trading with the normal purchasing place and the type of the shipment list, the Plaintiff could not be deemed as having been aware of the market price of the Plaintiff’s business under the name of the saidCC.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.