Early High Court Decision 2010Du4080 ( October 11, 2011)

Since the fact that abnormal shipment slips have not been issued is not confirmed, it shall not be recognized as good faith or negligence.

If the normal trade pre-issuance ticket is issued similar, the Plaintiff’s purchase price and the delivery place column must be indicated in the customer column. However, the Plaintiff’s pre-issuance slip contains the gas station with the other customers and the gas station, so it is necessary to verify at least whether the oil was sold to the Plaintiff’s purchaser, but it is not recognized as good faith and without fault, since the Plaintiff’s pre-issuance slip contains the fact that the oil was sold to the Plaintiff.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Ansan and 2 others

Head of the District Tax Office and two others

September 6, 2011

October 11, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The imposition of KRW 79,025,390 of value-added tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on September 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff, the director of the tax office of Nam-ju on December 8, 2010 against the 2008 Y, the imposition of KRW 9,464,780 of value-added tax for the 2008 Y against the Plaintiff, the head of the tax office of Nam-ju on September 1, 2010, the imposition of KRW 70,903,580 of value-added tax for the 2008 Y against the Plaintiff, the head of the tax office of Nam-ju on November 9, 201, the imposition of KRW 20,10,492, value-added tax for the 2008 Y, the head of the tax office of Nam-ju on November 20, 200, the imposition of KRW 308,207.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff Ansan, YY, from July 1, 2008, 200 to 00-38, the gas station in the trade name, "AA high-speed gas station located in Macedong 00-38," the plaintiff Ansan, from August 26, 2004 to 004, the gas station in the trade name, "BB gas station located in 005," and the gas station in the trade name, "B gas station located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Si, 2000-2, and 00-5, the newCC oil station located in Suwon-si from May 1, 2006 to 00-2, and the plaintiff's gas station from August 18, 2003 to 00-1, respectively.

B. In 2008, the Plaintiffs received each purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) as listed below from ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○○○”) in the taxable period of value-added tax, and deducted the input tax amount on the said tax invoice, thereby imposing a value-added tax on the Defendants.

[The following table omitted]

C. The director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office and the director of the Incheon District Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on the ○○○○ Uniform, and confirmed it as data, and notified the Defendants of the tax invoice as false account statement prepared without real transaction.

D. Accordingly, the Defendants imposed the value-added tax of 2008 for each of the Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) as stated in the purport of the claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1-3, Eul evidence 1-1-5, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Plaintiffs were actually supplied with oil from 00 U.S. and traded the purchase price to 000 U.S., the instant tax invoice was not different from the facts, and even if it was a false tax invoice, the Plaintiffs received and confirmed the business registration certificate, etc. while doing trade with 00 U.S., and did not have been negligent in not knowing that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice, such as sending the oil price directly to the corporate account of 000 U.S., and receiving the tax invoice, and thus, the instant disposition by the Defendants was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

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 actual supply of goods or services or the price and time of the supply, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

We examine whether the transaction partner who supplied oil to the plaintiffs is the supplier listed in the tax invoice of this case. On August 1, 2008, the following circumstances, i.e., 000 U.S.T. 1 through 3 of the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the Plaintiff, concluded a lease contract on the oil tank 642 of the No. 1 of Pyeongtaek-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but did not actually use the above oil tank 3 of the No. 1 of the Plaintiff, but did not actually use the above oil tank 1 of the No. 3 of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the No. 3 of the No. 1 of the No. 97500,000 of the total purchase price of the No. 1 of the No. 3758 of the Plaintiff’s purchase price.

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are bona fide and without fault or not

Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless he/she was aware of the fact that the person who received the tax invoice was not aware of the fact that the other tax invoice was entered in the name of the supplier, and the person who asserted the deduction or refund of the input tax amount is not negligent in not knowing the fact that the person who received

As to whether the plaintiffs were unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case and did not know that they were negligent, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the above facts, ○○○○○ number of the Plaintiff’s 1 to 3, 14-1 to 19, 1 to 31-18, 37-1 to 4, and 4-1 to 4 of the Plaintiff’s 1 to 5-1 to 3, the Plaintiff’s 5-1 to 3-1 to 4 were not informed of the shipping time of the Plaintiff’s 1 to 3-1 to 6-1 to 4, and the Plaintiff’s 5-2 to 1 to 3-1 to 5-2 to 3-1 to 3-2 to 4-2 to 3-2 to 3-2 to 4-2 to 3-2 to 3-4 to 1 to 200 to 4-2 to 2-4 to 3-2 to 3-4 to 3-4 to 1 to 3-4 to 2 to 3-4 to 2 to 3-4 to 2 to 2 to 3-4 to c to me to supply the oil.

Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and it is insufficient to recognize the circumstances that the Plaintiffs believe that the tax invoice received as the same is properly written. As such, the instant disposition by the Defendants, which was conducted without deducting the input tax amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice, is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.