Cheongju District Court 2012Guhap176 ( October 28, 2012)

Cho High 201 Jeon 2410 ( November 09, 2011)

The instant tax invoice is a different tax invoice by the supplier, and the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

(1) The instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice that is entered by the supplier, and the Plaintiff was negligent in having known, or not having known, that the person entered as the supplier was not the actual counterparty of the transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(Cheongju) revocation of the disposition of imposing value-added tax 2012Nu486

AA

Head of Cheongju Tax Office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Guhap176 Decided June 28, 2012

July 17, 2013

August 14, 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 shall be revoked. On April 1, 201, the first time in 2010 that the defendant made against the plaintiff on April 1, 2011.

SectorThe imposition of value-added tax and additional tax OOOO shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is the same as that for the judgment of the court of the first instance except for the following cases in Paragraph 2, and is therefore cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act") provides that "in cases where all or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as "necessary entry items") are not entered or differently entered in the tax invoice issued, the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount, and the proviso of the same subparagraph shall be excluded from the input tax amount, and Article 60 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree" means cases where some of the requisite entry items of the tax invoice issued under Article 16 of the Act are erroneously entered, but it is confirmed that the relevant transaction has been made by considering the relevant tax invoice as other requisite entry items or voluntary entry items".

However, considering the fact that the same item and quantity oil as stated in each of the tax invoices of this case were actually supplied to the gas station of this case, and the plaintiff paid the oil price to BBB, the input tax amount stated in each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes "where transactions are confirmed in view of the fact that some of the requisite entries of the tax invoice of this case are mistakenly recorded, but the other necessary entries or discretionary entries of the tax invoice of this case are entered," and therefore, it should be deducted pursuant to the proviso of Article 17 (2) 2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 60 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination

In light of the plaintiff's argument, the plaintiff is actually supplied oil from BBB as stated in the tax invoice in each of the tax invoices in this case, so it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's registration number and name or name of the business operator who supplies "the necessary entry" in each of the tax invoices in this case constitutes a case where the plaintiff entered it in error, and in addition, the plaintiff was supplied with oil from BBB as stated in each of the tax invoices in this case not directly by the supplier, but by a third party. However, BBB is merely provided with necessary data such as the tax invoice for real transactions between the plaintiff and the third party and mediating real transactions. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.