It constitutes a false tax invoice different from the fact that the person receiving the supply does not coincide with the price, time, etc.

A tax invoice issued without the actual supply of oil constitutes a false tax invoice, and the disposition is lawful because there is no good faith or negligence on the part of not knowing that it is a false tax invoice.

Article 39 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap2888 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

HongA

Kim Jong-soo

July 23, 2013

August 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of March 2, 201, imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff, and the imposition of the value-added tax for the second period of March 2, 2009, and the imposition of the additional tax for the first period of January 7, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. The plaintiff is an entrepreneur operating a gas station under the trade name of "OOO 190 to BB gas station", "BO 209", and "B. The plaintiff received one copy of the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter "the tax invoice in this case") which is the supply price from "CC Energy during the second taxable period of the value-added tax" in 2009, and filed a return for value-added tax after deducting the relevant input tax from the output tax amount." (c) The head of the Busan Regional Tax Office determined that the tax invoice in this case was different from the fact as a result of the investigation into the EnergyCC, and notified the defendant on March 2, 201, by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, the plaintiff was subject to imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 209 to 300 OO 209, but the plaintiff was subject to imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 201 on March 2, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, 15, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence 16 through 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff traded the energy and real goods and paid the transaction price to a normal route, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party, even if it was verified the business registration certificate, petroleum sales business registration certificate, etc. ofCC energy, and the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care to verify the details of the transaction slips even after being supplied with oil.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) First, we examine whether the instant tax invoice is false or not.

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In such a case, the meaning of different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is a separate person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that where the necessary entries in a tax invoice do not coincide with those in the form of a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction, the requisite entry in the tax invoice refers to cases where the actual supply of the goods or service does not coincide with the value, time, etc

In this case, considering the following facts, Gap evidence 11-1 through 4, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 12-1 through Eul evidence 12-1, Eul evidence 12-4, Eul evidence 14, and Eul evidence 15, the whole purport of the pleadings, which is acknowledged as a whole: (i) as a result of a tax investigation,CC energy, which is a supplier listed in the tax invoice of this case, was identified as a material that issues a processed tax invoice without real transactions; (ii) the representative director ofCC, although he did not supply oil to gas stations, was convicted of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice), (ii) in light of the fact that it is difficult to viewCC energy as a pre-distribution list issued by the plaintiff because it is difficult to view it as a real oil supplier, and therefore, the tax invoice of this case is reasonable and reasonable for the supplier to view it as a different portion of the tax invoice of this case.

2) Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault.

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the person who received the other tax invoice was not aware of the fact of misrepresentation of the name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that there was no negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice in knowing the false name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du227

In this case, according to Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 through 5, and Gap evidence Nos. 10 and witness witness witness testimony, the plaintiff was issued a shipment ticket each time it makes a transaction withCC energy and remitted oil price toCC energy account.CC's business registration and petroleum selling business (general agency) registration is recognized. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the tax invoice of this case issued byCC energy was not true and was not negligent due to the plaintiff's failure to know that the tax invoice of this case issued byCC energy was a false tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 8 and witness Hong Jincheon's testimony, are as follows: ① the purchase unit price of the oil purchased fromCC energy was 30 to 40 won per liter than static oil, and in such a case, the Plaintiff must undergo a thorough examination as to whether the seller is an actual oil selling business operator, such as the existence of oil reservoir. However, the Plaintiff did not undergo such verification procedures. ② At the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff stated that there was no knowledge of the purchaser's president or office location, driver, and oil delivery, and that there was no fact that the oil source was confirmed. ③ If the Plaintiff received the tax invoice in this case and submitted to the Korea Daijincheon-do Association, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was aware of the Plaintiff's usual oil supply business type or false information about the oil industry's oil supply method.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.