Cho High Court Decision 2009J 3991 (2010.05.04)

false or processed tax invoices prepared as if the oil was supplied

The tax invoice received constitutes a false or processed tax invoice prepared as if the oil was supplied even if the oil was not actually supplied, and it is difficult to see that he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care as a good manager at the time of the transaction through the transit, and thus, a non-deductible disposition

2010Guhap2405 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

홍〇〇

〇〇세무서장

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 34,573,470 on September 1, 2009 on the part of the Plaintiff on September 1, 2006, and KRW 39,085,720 on the part of the Plaintiff in the year 2006, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 〇〇 〇〇구 〇〇동 782-2에서 '△△주유소'를 운영하다가 2007. 10. 26. 폐업한 자이다.

B. In February 2006 and January 2007, the Plaintiff received seven copies of purchase tax invoices of KRW 506,012,260 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in total in the name of △△△ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△”) during the taxable period, and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and adding it to the necessary expenses from the total amount of business income.

C. As a result of the tax investigation on △△ Energy from September 18, 2007 to November 16, 2007, the director of the Central Tax Office of Central Regional Tax Office: (a) deemed that △△ Energy was issued a tax invoice of KRW 3,2470,000,00 for KRW 99.5% of the value-added tax base, not by supplying actual oil to the sales transaction parties including the Plaintiff, but by means of forging the shipment slips during the tax period on February 2, 2006 - the method of forging the shipment slips, etc. during the tax period of January 2007, and notified the head of each competent tax office thereof.

D. Accordingly, on September 7, 2009, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice received without real transaction, and issued a revised imposition disposition of KRW 34,573,470, and value-added tax of KRW 39,085,720 for the first time of 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that it was dissatisfied therewith, but was dismissed on May 4, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 7, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고는 인근 주유소 사장으로부터 소개받은 △△에너지의 영업이사로부터 정유사의 〇〇 저유소로부터 직접 출하되는 정품경유를 본사와의 거래조건보다 유리하게 공급해주겠다는 제의를 받고 2006. 10월경부터 2007. 6월경까지 경유를 구입하고, 그 대금을 송금하였는데도 위 거래가 모두 가공임을 전제로 한 피고의 처분은 위법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction constitutes a tax invoice that is different from the fact under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the deduction of an input tax amount is denied on the ground that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). Furthermore, a supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice may not be deducted or refunded an input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the nominal transaction, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the nominal transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

2) 갑10, 11호증의 1 내지 15, 을 1 내지 5호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면,① 원고가 유류를 공급받았다고 주장하는 △△에너지는 2004. 9월경부터 □□널 주식회사 □□사업소로부터 유류보관 탱크 1기(1,000kℓ)를 임차하여 사용하여 왔는데 2006년 이후에는 여기에서 석유를 입 ・ 출고한 적은 없고, ▽▽지 주식회사에 수송장비별 출하현황을 조회한 결과 원고 주장의 차량과 기사가 해당날짜에는 출하내역이 없거나 도착지 등이 서로 다르게 기재되어 있는 사실, ② 2006. 2 - 2007. 1기 과세기간 중 유류 무자료 중간상을 하는 개인사업자가 거래처에 무자료 유류를 공급하고 △△에너지 명의로 허위 세금계산서를 발행, 교부하여 △△에너지 명의로 매출을 발생시켜 왔던 사실,③ △△에너지는 위 과세기간 중 주식회사 ●●에너지, ◇◇ 에너지, 주식회사 ▲▲마트 등으로부터 가공 매입세금계산서를 수취하고 출하전표를 위조하는 등의 수법으로 원고 등 매출 거래처에 자신이 실질적으로 유류를 공급하지 아니하고 부가가치세 매출과세표준 기4억 255만 원의 약 99.5%에 해당하는 710억 3,247만 원의 허위세금계산서를 교부하는 등으로 비정상적인 영업을 한 사실,④ 중부지방국세청장은 2007. 11월경 △△에너지에 대한 세무조사 후 의정부지방검찰청 고양지청에 △△에너지 및 그 대표이사 최AA, 김BB, 천CC이 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 허위로 발행 ・ 교부하였다는 등의 내용으로 고발하였고, △△에너지 대표이사 최AA는 특정범죄가중처벌 등에 관한 법률위반(허위세금계산서 교부 등)죄로 의정부지방법원고양지원(2007고합121)에서 2008. 2. 1. 징역 1년 6월을 선고받은 사실,⑤ 원고는 2006년 2기 부가가치세 과세기간에 △△에너지로부터 232,818,180원 상당의 유류를 공급받았다고 하나 그 기간에 △△에너지에 송금한 금액은 334만 원에 불과한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 이러한 사실을 종합하면 △△에너지는 실물거래를 하지 않은 채 비과세 기름 등을 보유한 개인사업자와 원고 등 주유소업을 하는 자 사이에 실물 거래가 이루어지도록 하면서 △△에너지 명의의 세금계산서 등을 발행하여 마치 △△에너지가 직접 실물거래를 한 것처럼 가장한 것으로 보이므로, 원고가 수취한 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 △△에너지가 실질적으로 유류를 공급하지 않았음에도 그가 유류를 공급한 것처럼 작성된 허위 또는 가공의 세금계산서에 해당한다.

3) Furthermore, we examine whether the Plaintiff was negligent in having been unaware of the name of each of the instant tax invoices and having been unaware of the fact.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, the plaintiff is entitled to receive oil (hereinafter referred to as "oil in this case") from a business director of △△ Energy for the supply of oil at a price of at least 20,000 litress per 300,000 won (one tank 1), compared to the arm's length price. However, the plaintiff continued to be supplied with oil at a price of at least 15 won per 1 litres from the first transaction with △△ Energy, but the plaintiff did not properly verify the substance of △△△△ and DaD while he was being provided with oil at a low price of at least 15 won per 1 litres from the arm's length price, and it is difficult for △△△△ to view that the plaintiff did not know that the plaintiff did not have been aware of the fact that the plaintiff did not actually supply the false tax invoice in this case, even if he did not know that the plaintiff did not know that the plaintiff did not actually supply the false tax invoice in this case to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3.In conclusion

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