early 2010 Heavy2504 (Law No. 112, 2012)

The plaintiff's good faith and negligence that the oil supplier received a tax invoice different from the fact can not be recognized.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff has handled oil for a long time, bought oil at low cost, made a false list of oil shipment, made a false list of oil delivery places into another business entity, and did not indicate a tank number and ex-factory number on the shipment slip, etc., the Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault that the supplier received a false tax invoice cannot be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

AAI Petroleum Primary Co., Ltd.

the director of the tax office of Western

November 23, 2012

December 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition taken by the Defendant on September 6, 2009 against the Plaintiff on the second period of 2007, 000 won for the first period of 2008, and 000 won for the second period of 2008, and 000 won for the second period of 2008, and 000 won for the second year of 2007, and 000 won for the year of 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "AA gas station" (hereinafter referred to as "the gas station in this case") from 000 OOdong, Seo-gu, Incheon.

B. In operating the gas station of this case, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice of this case”) in total from the FF Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “FF Energy”), DD Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DD Energy”), and EE Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “EE Energy”), and filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount in each corresponding taxable period.

C. The Defendant notified the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office of the result that FF energy, DD energy, and EE Energy constitute materials that issued sales and purchase tax invoices without real transactions, and on June 30, 2009, the Defendant denied the deduction of input tax pursuant to the above tax invoice and notified the Plaintiff of the pre-announcement of taxation amounting to KRW 000 in total of value-added tax and corporate tax.

D. On August 28, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request for pre-assessment review with respect to the above pre-assessment notice, and the Defendant denied the tax invoice under the above tax invoice on September 26, 2009, and imposed the Plaintiff the total amount of value-added tax (200 won for the second period in 2007, 000 won for the first period in 2008, 000 won for the second period in 2008, and 000 won for the second period in 2008) and the total amount of corporate tax (00 won for the second period in 2007, and 000 won for the second period in 2008) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. On November 25, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, but was dismissed, and on July 31, 2010, filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was likewise dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments, and the non-satis, Gap evidence 31, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, 4, 6, and 7

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased actual oil from FF energy, DD energy, and EE energy, and received the instant tax invoice, and the instant tax invoice cannot be viewed as constituting a false tax invoice. Moreover, the instant tax invoice is unlawful since the Plaintiff confirmed FF energy, DD energy, and EE energy retail business registration certificate and business registration, and remitted oil price to the bank account under the name of each company, and the Plaintiff did not know that it was a disguised business operator, and the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing that it was a disguised business operator, and thus, the instant tax invoice was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a disguised transaction

The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts is that the contents of the requisite entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person who actually supplied or is supplied with the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services. The following facts are acknowledged, taking into account each entry in Gap, Gap, Eul, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 16 through 22 (each number), and Eul, and Eul evidence 4 through 10:

① F Energy receives false tax invoices in 207, 208, 1, 2008, and 2, from GG energy, H energy, and H energy, and III energy without supplying oil, and D Energy receives false tax invoices during the above period without supplying oil, and E Energy issues sales tax invoices without supplying oil without supplying oil, while EE Energy receives false tax invoices from LL and MM energy, JJ date, and NN without supplying oil during the above period, and without supplying oil.

② The representative of FF Energy has never been engaged in oil distribution business, and even if there was no business experience or business fund, the annual sales have reached KRW 000 for one year after the commencement of the business.

③ DD에너지의 명의상 대표자는 유QQ이고， EE에너지의 명의상 대표자는 이길수이나， DD에너지 및 EE에너지의 실질적 운영자는 유SS이다. 위 유SS은 OO에너지의 대표자인 유PP와 서로 사업자등록증상 기재된 사업장을 바꾸어 사용하였다.

④ FF energy was falsely drawn up, even though the oil storage tank was leased from TTTM date, there was no oil storage tank in the oil storage tank, and there was no fact that the oil was shipped out at the oil storage station listed in the shipment slips issued from FF energy, as well as DD energy that did not possess transport equipment was written as a means of transport.

⑤ D Energy has leased the oil storage tank from the Green Energy, but there has not been any entry and exit details of the oil storage tank, and there has not been any transport equipment necessary for oil transport. In addition, the oil reservoir listed in the shipment slips issued from DD Energy is not D Energy, and the place of arrival of the oil shipped is also indicated as those other than the Plaintiff.

6. EE energy was leased with oil storage and transport equipment from UU dwelling, but the oil reservoir listed in the shipment slips issued by EE Energy was not DD energy, and the place of arrival for the oil shipped was written with other companies than the Plaintiff.

➆ 위 FF에너지， DD에너지 및 EE에너지에서 발행한 출하전표상 운송수단이 OO차량으로 모두 동일하고， 일반적인 출하전표의 경우와 달리 출고번호가 기재되어 있지 아니하다. 위 인정사실에 의하면， 이 사건 세금계산서는 원고와 FF에너지， DD에너지 및 EE에너지 사이에 위장거래에 의하여 작성된 세금계산서에 해당한다고 봄이 상당하다 {위 인정사실에 비추어 볼 때， 원고가 제출한 갑 제1 내지 29호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재만으로는， 원고가 FF에너지， DD에너지 및 EE에너지로부터 실제 이 사건 세금계산서에 해당하는 유류를 매입하였다고 인정하기 부족하다}.

2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence

In light of the actual supplier's tax invoice and other supplier's tax invoice, the supplier cannot deduct or refund the above input tax invoice unless there are any special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the fact, and that the supplier was not negligent in failing to know the above fact, the supplier should prove that the supplier was not negligent in shipping the input tax invoice or the other party's input tax invoice. Therefore, considering that the supplier's input tax invoice and the other party's input tax invoice were 0 years and 12 years, and 14 days and 15 days (including each number), and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the other party was not guilty of shipping, and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the supplier was not guilty of shipping the invoice or the other party's actual shipping time, and that the supplier was not guilty of shipping the invoice or the other party's actual shipping time, and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the invoice or the other party did not know of the fact that it had been issued for 10 years or more, but the plaintiff did not know of the above facts.

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.