Cho High 2012 Before 1320 (Law No. 10, 2012)

In receiving a false tax invoice, the plaintiff's good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff operated a retail business from around 2004, and the shipping slips received were defective, and that the customer was purchased at a lower price than the market, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take measures to properly verify the authenticity and the distribution process of oil by the customer, even though it was sufficiently suspected that the customer was not a normal trader.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

KimA

The Director of the National Tax Service

May 8, 2013

May 29, 2013

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

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

On November 1, 201, the Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 000 on the first quarter value-added tax for the Plaintiff in 2009, value-added tax for the second quarter in 2009, value-added tax for the first quarter in 2009, value-added tax for the first quarter in 2010, value-added tax for the second quarter in 2000, and global income tax for the second quarter in 2010 and global income tax for the second year in 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 9, 2004, the Plaintiff runs oil retail business with the trade name of "BB gas station" from 000 to O in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu.

B. The Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 000 in total from the CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCC Co., Ltd.”), and filed a tax invoice of KRW 400 (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) equivalent to the total value of supply from the DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DDD”), as listed below, and reported and paid the value-added tax to the Defendant.

C. The Director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to CCC companies and DDD, and as a result, he confirmed that all of them are so-called data that the tax invoice was issued without real transactions and notified the Defendant of the results of the investigation.

D. On November 1, 201, the Defendant issued a revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second term portion in 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second term portion in 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second term in 2010, and KRW 000 of the global income tax for the second term in 2010, and accordingly, KRW 00 of the global income tax for the second term in 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 2, 201 through an objection on December 22, 2011, but was dismissed on May 10, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 8 through 10, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 5 (where available, the number shall be included, hereinafter the same), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The assertion that it is a tax invoice consistent with the fact of transaction

The Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil from CCC companies and DDD and was engaged in normal transactions, such as the issuance of tax invoices, while paying the price. Therefore, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

2) The assertion that the person is a counterparty to the good faith or negligence

Even if the oil supplier supplied to the Plaintiff is not the OO company and DDD as indicated in the instant tax invoice, but the Plaintiff did not know that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff did not know that the oil was supplied to the other company. In trading with the CCC company and DDD, the Plaintiff did not know that the product was registered as a business operator, whether the petroleum sales business was permitted, and whether the product dealt with, was normal, by a public certificate. Thus, there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff was introduced by CCC in around 2009 from the KimF of the EEF in 2009, and received the CCC company’s business registration certificate, petroleum sales (general agency) registration certificate, and passbook copy by facsimile from the EEE. The Plaintiff was sent by facsimile around 2010, and received DDR’s business registration certificate, petroleum export-import business registration certificate, and passbook copy by facsimile. The Plaintiff ordered CCC company or DDD to supply oil by facsimile or telephone to the EE office of the EEE company in the year when the CCC company or DDD intended to supply oil, and thereafter, the oil tank article supplied oil by facsimile.

2) CCC-related matters

On January 4, 2008, the CCC company registered its business with the location of Daejeon-gu 000, and CCC company reported to the oil storage facility at the time of the long-term closure of the storage facility, and there was no actual oil transaction details prior to the closure of the oil. On deposit from the customer to the financial account of the CCC company, the entire amount of the CCC company's OO Korea (the corporation that issued the tax invoice to the CCC company without real transaction) was released within several days after transfer of the oil price to the account of the CCC company to the account of the CCC company, and the entire amount was released in cash. The results of the Daejeon District Tax Office's investigation, from February 2, 2009 to January 2010, the CCC company received a tax invoice equivalent to the total purchase amount of KRW 00,000 from the CCC company without real transaction, and the Plaintiff issued the KCC company's total sales amount of KRW 1050,000 to the CCC company's 2050.

3) Diplomatic relation

DD was registered as a petroleum export-import business on March 20, 2010, using the location of DD as an official post office, but it was not verified at all the petroleum export-import performance, and it was reported as the petroleum storage facilities, and the amount deposited into DD from the customer was fully withdrawn in cash immediately. The results of the investigation of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office and the official post office, and DD was confirmed as data, and the ex officio closure was taken on August 29, 2010.

4) Meanwhile, the shipment slips received by the Plaintiff from CCC companies are written in the shipment column, not only the name of CCC companies, but also the temperature and weight of CCC companies. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff did not release the shipment slips received from DDR, only the address of DDR, rather than the oil reservoir, and the temperature and proportion are not entirely indicated.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-strifed facts, Gap evidence 3 through 5, evidence 8 through 10, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice was written differently from the fact

It is necessary to prove that the tax invoice submitted by the person liable for duty to pay value-added tax was prepared without any actual transaction, or that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact, and that it is proved by the tax office that it is actual purchase, and that the transaction with the supplier stated in the tax invoice that the taxpayer claims is considerably false, and that it is easy for the person liable for duty to pay tax to present data such as books and evidence regarding the actual transaction with the supplier listed in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 200). In addition, in light of the fact that the taxpayer supplied the tax invoice to the supplier under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the person liable for duty to pay value-added tax was not the person establishing a legal relationship with the supplier or the supplier, and that the supplier or the supplier actually supplied the goods or services to the supplier, and that the supplier and the supplier are not the person liable for duty to submit the tax invoice to the Plaintiff without any actual contact with the manufacturer or the supplier.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

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 supplier was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who was provided with the tax invoice was not negligent in not knowing the fact of the disguised name should prove that the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 1

The Plaintiff’s failure to know that there was a difference between the supplier and the actual supplier as indicated in the instant tax invoice, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

On the other hand, the following circumstances, namely, ① the supply structure of oil industry is complicated and frequent, so it is necessary to pay attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier, and even though the Plaintiff has been engaged in petroleum retail business since 2004, the Plaintiff seems to have been aware of the normal structure and distribution route of the oil supply, the general type and method of the industry, and the actual situation and danger of the spread of the material industry through experience in the oil industry.Second, it is difficult to confirm whether the Plaintiff was the normal product of the oil industry, and if it is not the products of the Plaintiff, it is hard to find that the Plaintiff was not the normal product of the Plaintiff, and if it is not the products of the Plaintiff, it is hard to find that the Plaintiff was not the supplier of the oil products of this case, but the supply of the products of the Plaintiff's products of this case at the time of its request, and it is hard to see that the Plaintiff was the supplier of the products of this case at the time of its normal supply of the products of this case.

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.