Early High Court Decision 201J 1983 ( October 27, 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.

As long as each purchaser of this case did not have the ability to supply oil of the tax invoice of this case, the supplier shall be deemed to be a third party. Thus, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice stating that the supplier was the purchaser of this case, even though the third party supplied oil, and the supplier should not be deemed to have acted in good faith and without fault of the plaintiff who received the tax invoice.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap6381 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

IsaA

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

July 26, 2012

August 30, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 (including additional taxes) on March 1, 201 and KRW 000 (including additional taxes) on KRW 200 (including additional taxes) on KRW 1, 2010 on the Plaintiff on March 1, 201 shall be revoked.

(Entrys in the written complaint in March 8, 201) is obvious that the phrase " March 8, 2011" is a clerical error.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 1, 2007, the Plaintiff is running a retail business with the trade name of the Plaintiff, which is from 000 to 000 O-dong, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On October 6, 2009 and the 9th day of the same month, the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, the Plaintiff received 10 tax invoices of the total value of supply from the company from the company from October 1, 2009 to December 28 of the same year, and deducted the above supply value as the input tax amount, when filing the return on the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009 to the Defendant.

C. From January 29, 2010 to May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff received each tax invoice of KRW 000,000 from J Energy Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J Energy”), and filed a tax invoice of KRW 000,000, in return for the first period of value added tax in 2010, from Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J Energy”), and deducted the said supply value from the input tax amount.

D. On March 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) deemed that each of the tax invoices listed in the above B. (c) (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) was a false tax invoice; (b) denied input tax; and (c) issued each of the instant dispositions that the Plaintiff corrected and notified the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 271,000 (including additional tax) and KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the first period of value-added tax of KRW 1, 2010.

D. On May 24, 2011, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 24, 201, and was dismissed on October 27, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff actually purchased oil from GG petroleum chemistry, H energy, II energy, and J Energy (hereinafter “each of the instant purchasing places”) and received the instant tax invoice, and the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

(2) The Plaintiff confirmed the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate, etc. at the time of oil trade with each of the instant purchasing places, and paid oil to the corporate account, and confirmed the type, quantity, and the place of destination after receiving the shipment slip from the oil transport service provider. Thus, even if the instant tax invoice is false, it was not negligent in not knowing it.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether a false tax invoice is false

Article 14(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 and No. 10409 of December 27, 201) provides that the above entry of the tax invoice is different from the fact that the Plaintiff’s actual supplier supplied the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s actual supplier supplied the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff for 0 years, and that there was no other person to whom the entry of the tax invoice belongs, 20% of the total tax invoice was entered, and that there was no other person to whom the tax invoice belongs, 30% of the total tax invoice was entered, and 9% of the total tax invoice supplied to the Plaintiff, and that there was no difference between the Plaintiff’s actual supplier’s capacity to purchase and sell the instant tax invoice and 10% of the total tax invoice supplied to the Plaintiff, and that there was no difference between the Plaintiff’s actual supplier’s tax invoice and 20% of the total tax invoice supplied to the Plaintiff, and that there was no difference between the Plaintiff’s actual supplier’s tax invoice and 9.

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

The actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the name of the invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the above name of the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). According to the evidence evidence No. 1 through No. 5 (including household numbers) and the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff was supplied with oil from each of the purchase stations, and the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that each of the purchase stations issued the tax invoice, and that the Plaintiff was issued with the invoice No. 7, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was supplied with the oil market price, and that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff paid the oil price through the bank account of each of the purchase headquarters immediately after the supply of the oil, and that there was no other evidence that the Plaintiff had been supplied with the oil under the name of the supplier, other than the market price before the arrival.

3. Conclusion

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