No plaintiff who received a false tax invoice shall be deemed to have been negligent in good faith.

The plaintiff knew thatCC energy was not a person who actually supplied oil, or even if he did not know such fact, it is reasonable to deem that there was negligence.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap4386 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

United StatesA

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

December 4, 2013

January 15, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first term of October 1, 2012 against the Plaintiff on 1, 2009 and the second term of value-added tax for the second term of 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 28, 2008 to February 22, 2010, the Plaintiff carried out a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) under the name of OO-dong 168-5 to BB gas station”, and “B.” The Plaintiff, in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, received each tax invoice of the total value of supply in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009 (hereinafter “each of the above tax invoices”) from the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC energy”), and filed a decision to dismiss each of the instant tax invoices of the total value of supply in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) including the value-added tax amount as the input tax amount subject to the deduction; and (c) the Defendant denied the deduction of the input tax amount as the tax invoice on October 1, 2012, but received each of the instant tax invoices of 2000 U.S. 29.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice fromCC energy and received the instant tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and even if the actual supplier of domestic oil is not theCC energy, the Plaintiff was unaware of it, and was not aware of it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

A) If a taxpayer liable to pay value-added tax proves that a tax invoice submitted as a basis for input tax deduction was prepared in a false way without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and thus, the tax office’s substantial proof of whether it is an actual purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier stated in a tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is considerably false, a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and documentary evidence, should prove that it was actually traded with a supplier listed in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009).

In addition, a tax invoice shall be issued by an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act, and a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed to be a person who actually receives goods or services from an entrepreneur who does not form a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services, or a person who actually performs a transaction of supplying goods or services to a supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

B) According to the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice Nos. 9 and 5 (“CC”) issued the Plaintiff’s oil-free petroleum-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil market (hereinafter “CC”) after the Plaintiff’s tax investigation conducted by the Central Tax Office on the documents. The Plaintiff’s confirmation was made as to the entire sales tax invoice issued without real transaction and the Plaintiff’s complaint was confirmed as to the material-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil market that the Plaintiff’s sales of the oil-free oil-free oil-related oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil-free oil market.

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice either knew the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the said name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277,

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8, and 10, the Plaintiff obtained the above company’s business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, and the name of its operating staff at the time of the transaction withCC Energy, etc., and remitted the corresponding amount to the above company’s corporate account after the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice fromCC Energy, and then remitted it to the pertinent company’s corporate account. The facts are acknowledged, such as the Plaintiff’s document confirming that the transaction with the Plaintiff was true with respect to the instant tax invoice, but the above facts alone did not reveal that the Plaintiff did not know that the actual supplier of the oil was not theCC energy, and were not negligent.

Rather, the aforementioned facts and the following facts acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 16 and the purport of the entire argument are social problems, namely, ① the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and the transaction without tax-free oil is frequent, so it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier. ② The plaintiff is a person operating the gas station. ② The plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the normal supply structure and distribution route of the oil, the general trade type or method of the industry, and the actual situation and risk of the transaction in the distribution industry. ③ If the plaintiff asked about the oil supply situation and location of the oil reservoir listed in the tax invoice of this case and each distribution slip of this case, it could easily be seen that the plaintiff could not have easily known that the oil was shipped out on that date, and ④ The plaintiff did not have been aware of the fact that the oil was stored in the oil storage or supplied with the oil, and therefore, the plaintiff did not have been aware of the fact that the above oil was not actually supplied or supplied with the oil.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.