Chuncheon District Court 201Guhap1694, 2012.07

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3886 ( October 24, 2011)

The tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice entered falsely by the supplier, and the plaintiff's good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Each tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice by oil supplier; the issuance of the shipment slips is abnormal; the issuance of the shipment slips is required to pay more attention when trading through the Internet site; and the company of the business member was changed 4 times or 4 times a year and 4 months; etc., the plaintiff's good faith and without negligence should not be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(Chuncheon)Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax by 2012Nu1018

Song AA

Head of the District Tax Office

Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Guhap1694 Decided September 7, 2012

January 9, 2013

January 23, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The value-added tax of the first instance of February 1, 2010 that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010.

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00, KRW 000, and KRW 000 for the second period of 2008 and KRW 000 for the first period of 209 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

In addition to the reasoning for this case, the court's reasoning is as stated in the first instance court's reasoning, and it cited this case in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the court's reasoning is the same as stated in the second instance court's reasoning.

2. The part used in the trial (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's good faith and without fault on the part of the purchaser of this case)

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the person who received the other tax invoice was unaware of, and was not negligent in, the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not negligent in not aware of, the above disguised fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26695, Mar. 29, 2012). In addition, in the same case as above, a person who asserts the input tax deduction or refund should prove that the person who asserts the input tax amount was not negligent in knowing the fact that the supplier was not aware of, and in the name of, the data, the circumstances leading up to the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, and the specific route and process in which the goods or services were supplied, and the recipient was not aware of, the fact that the recipient was not aware of the fact that the name supplier was not the actual supplier’s place of business or business facilities.

The plaintiff's tax invoice was delivered to the seller of this case, and the amount stated in the tax invoice was not in dispute between the parties, while the purchaser of this case entered the above acknowledged facts, i.e., the purchaser of this case, upon entering the order from the purchaser such as the gas station, and without storing the oil shipped out of the major oil markets such as Hyundai Abank Co., Ltd., the purchaser of this case was transported immediately to the purchaser, without entering the store of this case. The supplier's negligence was only 7-8 times if the oil was shipped out at major oil prices, and if the supplier did not know of the fact that it was sent to the purchaser of this case, it was hard to view that the plaintiff had been sent to the purchaser of this case, and if it was sent to the purchaser of this case by mail, it was difficult to view that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the purchaser was not in fact aware of the purchase price in this case, and that the supplier was not aware of the purchase price in this case's 10 years ago, and that the supplier was not aware of the purchase price in this case's.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.