early 2012 Middle 3445 ( October 15, 2012)

No good faith or negligence of the plaintiff who received a false tax invoice shall be recognized.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff had been operating a gas station since 1996 and had been aware of the fact and risk of the spread of the industry, it is difficult to deem that there was no negligence by the Plaintiff, taking into account the fact that there was no fault on the part of the Plaintiff, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff received a defective shipment slip, and did not endeavor

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, 14980

JAA

port of origin

August 29, 2013

September 26, 2013

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

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

The imposition of each value-added tax and additional dues on December 1, 201 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 1, 201 and December 2009, and January 201, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 1996, the Plaintiff is a business operator operating a gas station under the trade name of “CC gas station” from OO-Gu OO-si O-si O-si O-si 120-19.

B. The Plaintiff, during the first half of the Value-Added Tax period of the first half of the year 2009, issued a tax invoice of KRW 00 (i.e., DNA companies (hereinafter referred to as "D companies"), EE Petroleum companies (hereinafter referred to as "EEE Petroleum"), and referring both DD companies and EE oil (hereinafter referred to as "the transaction parties in this case"), and issued a tax invoice of KRW 00 (i.e., d companies' OO0 won + EEE oil OO0 won + hereinafter referred to as "each tax invoice in this case"), and issued value-added tax invoice after deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant deducted the input tax amount on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was false, and imposed the Plaintiff each of the first period portion, the second period, and the first period portion, and the first period, the amount of the tax invoice (including the above additional taxes) on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-5, evidence 1-5, evidence 18, and evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The so-called oil-related agency business parties of this case purchased oil from other agencies or gas stations that are not similar to oil oil, and supplied oil to the Plaintiff in this mold by means of horizontal trade, and each of the tax invoices of this case is not different from the fact.

(2) Even if the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the private theory, it cannot be said that there was negligence in trading the instant transaction partners believed to be the actual oil supplier, such as confirming the business registration certificate, etc. of the instant transaction partners, and remitting the oil price to each corporate account.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether each of the instant tax invoices is false

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact is that "in light of the purpose of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that "if a person to whom it actually belongs belongs is merely nominal, and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer," and that the requisite entries of the tax invoice refer to cases where the goods or services are supplied in depth or do not coincide with those of the person to whom it is supplied or the person to whom it is supplied, or the time of the market, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). A tax invoice shall be issued by a business operator who supplies the goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person who pays value-added tax shall be deemed to have formed a nominal legal relationship with the business operator who actually supplied or supplied the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4205.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking into account the health stand, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the transaction parties of this case can find the fact that the plaintiff was not directly supplied to the plaintiff only on the so-called "processed tax invoice" issued, and each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier was falsely entered.

(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 unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and there is no negligence on the part of the supplier, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the name of the tax invoice, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4920, Jun. 27, 1997).

(B) In light of the overall purport of the arguments, the plaintiff was actually supplied with oil and deposited the price into a deposit account in the name of DDA company, and it was confirmed that transactions with the plaintiff were true from DDA company. However, the above evidence and the evidence No. 4-7 are as follows: (i) the plaintiff, who was operating the gas station from around 1996, seems to have been well aware of the normal structure and distribution route of the oil supply, the overall transaction volume or method of the industry, and the fact that the oil industry was widely spreaded to the oil industry; and (ii) the fact that the plaintiff did not know that the oil supplier did not have any column, density, and the fact that the plaintiff did not actually use the oil list in the name of DDA company, such as the fact that the plaintiff did not know that the oil supplier did not actually use the oil list in the name of DDA company.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claims are all dismissed as it is without merit, and they are judged as above.