Whether a processing tax invoice without real transaction related to oil purchase has been received

In full view of the fact that the business partner did not distribute the actual oil, the actual oil is deemed to have been purchased from a third party when considering the fact that the transaction partner filed a complaint with the tax authority and the conviction was finalized, and the details of issuance of the shipment slip

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 13,071,90 on February 5, 2009 against the Plaintiff of KRW 13,071,90 on February 5, 2009 is revoked (the Director’s notice appears to be a clerical error on February 5, 2009).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the contents of Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. From February 1, 2008 to December 10, 2008, the Plaintiff operated oil sales business under the trade name called “BBB gas station” in Daejeon-dong 366-2, Jung-gu, Daejeon. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, the Plaintiff received one tax invoice of KRW 78,818,182 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from the AA Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A Energy”), a oil wholesaler, and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the amount equivalent to the above input tax amount from the output tax amount.

B. As a result of the investigation into AA Energy from July 7, 2008 to September 16, 2008, the head of the Gangseo District Tax Office decided AA Energy as data and notified the Defendant of the taxation data on September 2008. The Defendant considered the instant tax invoice received from AA Energy as a tax invoice different from the fact, and thus, deducted the input tax amount of value-added tax from the Plaintiff on February 5, 2009, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 13,071,90 for value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 21, 2009 on May 4, 2009, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 17, 2009.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 31, 2008, the Plaintiff was supplied with 60,000 liters via AA Energy three times through the introduction of YD, which operated a gas station in Seoul. During this process, the Plaintiff received from the business operators of AA Energy, who visited the gas station operated by the Plaintiff, a certificate of business registration for AA Energy, a deposit account, a shipment slip issued by AA Energy, and the instant tax invoice, etc., and naturally knew that the Plaintiff was naturally supplied with the normal transit from AA Energy. The Plaintiff was acting in good faith for the Plaintiff who was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation in the name of AA Energy, and thus, the Defendant’s rejection of the input tax deduction related to the instant tax invoice was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of fact;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and contrary thereto, Gap evidence 4 is not believed to be stated in Gap evidence 7, and it is insufficient to reverse this by itself with the statement of Gap evidence 7.

(1) The AA Energy was first established on July 1, 2006 as the representative of the F, which was a natural energy corporation. On January 28, 2008, the trade name was changed to AA Energy after the transfer of the business to thisG on January 28, 2008. For the registration of petroleum retail business, the AA Energy leased storage facilities (13,00 KL - Pyeongtaek 13,00 KL - HHHH 642, EExat Co., Ltd.) and three transportation vehicles (60KL - Incheon 86,693, Incheon 86 Asian 86,6694, Incheon 86A6955). However, there was no fact that it was used once.

(2) The tax invoice under the name of the AA Energy shall be prepared by the UK, which actually operated the AA Energy, by presenting the data such as the company, quantity, unit price, etc. to the employees Y, or shall be prepared by the IA Energy by the IA Energy on the face of the State station name, kind, quantity, vehicle number, amount, article name, and shipping place by telephone, and the transaction price was immediately returned to the head of the Tong under the name of the AA Energy after deducting the fee for the issuance of the tax invoice.

(3) As a result of a tax investigation conducted for the first taxable period in 2008, the Director of the Gangseo-gu Tax Office determined that the amount of KRW 96,92,00,000 equivalent to approximately KRW 99.9% of the total amount of AA Energy reported, and KRW 96,890,601,297 equivalent to approximately KRW 99.9% of the total amount of KRW 99.9% of the total amount of purchase reported, and KRW 96,827,99,970 of the total amount of KRW 99.9% of the total amount of KRW 96,890,60,601,299,970 of each real transaction are a processed transaction not involving each real transaction. On September 9, 2008,

(4) In addition, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, in relation to the 2nd value-added tax in 2008, conducted a survey on the data on four companies, such as MM Energy, etc. in relation to the 2nd value-added tax, and found that the petroleum materials received a tax invoice from the first data and delivered the tax invoice to the subordinate data distributors, and received a false sales and purchase tax invoice by creating a subordinate data structure on which a tax invoice is issued to the oil station, etc. on behalf of the oil-free illegal petroleum sales agents. On the basis of the above subordinate data, UNK, the actual agent of AAA Energy, was in charge of receiving a false tax invoice from NNEnergy or MM Energy, and then filed a complaint against the second prosecutor's office again.

(5) 앞서 본 바와 같은 과세당국의 고발조치에 따라 2009. 6. 18. 대전지방법원 천안지원에서는, MM에너지 대표이사 정PP은 허위의 세금계산서를 판매하였다는 범죄사 실로 징역 1년에 집행유예 3년, NN에너지의 대표이사 김QQ과 AA에너지의 실제 운영자인 유KK은 MM에너지 등의 회사와 재화 또는 용역의 거래가 없음에도 이들로부터 허위 세금계산서를 교부받거나 교부하였다는 범죄사실로 각 징역 2년에 집행유예 3년이 선고되었고, 그 무렵 위 판결은 확정되었다.

(6) On March 31, 2008, the Plaintiff first traded the instant tax invoice from AA Energy, not from a customer who had been engaged in transactions with AA Energy, but from AA Energy, and remitted KRW 86,70,000 to a deposit account in the name of AA Energy, which was the largest amount of oil purchase during the 2nd VAT taxable period in 2008, and the shipment slips received from AA Energy were prepared in the same manner as seen earlier, and there was no signature of oil sources or carriers, and the oil supplied by the Plaintiff was actually shipped from the RR Energy Daejeon Oil Logistics Center and supplied to Japan New Oil Co., Ltd.

(7) On March 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant tax invoice with respect to global income tax on the Plaintiff was based on a processed transaction without a real transaction; and (b) denied necessary expenses; and imposed KRW 28,572,900 on the global income tax for the year 2008; (c) however, on May 27, 2010, the commissioner of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office recognized that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice; (d) however, he/she did not deem that there was no oil purchase equivalent to the said tax invoice; and (e) revoked the said disposition imposing global income tax on the Plaintiff

D. Determination

(1) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is the case where the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc., the goods or services are actually supplied or the goods or services are supplied, and as seen above, AA Energy is not distributed, and the judgment of conviction has become final on the ground that U.K., which is the actual operator, filed a complaint with the tax authorities, issued a false tax invoice. The fact that the oil storage facilities or transportation vehicles of AAA Energy reported at the time of the registration of oil business was not entirely used, each oil listed in the shipment slip is not supplied with AA Energy, but is found to have been supplied with new oil, and other details such as the issuance of the shipment slip, and it is reasonable to view that the actual purchasing place of the Plaintiff's oil of this case is purchased from other third parties, not the AA Energy, and therefore, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice.

(2) Furthermore, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the disguised fact in the name of the instant tax invoice, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the nominal fact in the name of the tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the name of the tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the name of the nominal fact in the above nominal name, the person claiming the input tax amount deduction or refund must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s proof under subparagraph 5, No. 7-1, No. 7-2, No. 8, and No. 9-1 through No. 3, which were submitted by the Plaintiff, are insufficient to acknowledge

(3) Rather, the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, namely, ① the shipment slips issued in the oil reservoir, generally, are issued with four copies, one copy of the oil reservoir, and one copy of the two remaining copies, signed and sealed by the seller, and one copy of the shipment slips issued at the time of shipment by the Daejeon Oil Logistics Center, are signed and sealed by the consignee. While the Plaintiff entered the shipment slips issued at the time of shipment by the Daejeon Oil Logistics Center, the Plaintiff did not sign the shipment slips directly shipped from AA Energy, and the Plaintiff did not sign the oil source or the carrier. ② The instant transaction with the Plaintiff was the largest of the purchase price of the oil during the second taxable period of value-added tax, and it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the Plaintiff’s global income tax invoice and the Plaintiff’s actual transaction. However, it was difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was not aware of the Plaintiff’s trade name and the Plaintiff’s actual transaction.

(4) Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was a bona fide and negligent person. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not deduct input tax amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed because there is no reason to do so, and it is the same as the order.