Cho High Court Decision 2010Nu0996 (2010.06.07)

tax invoices issued as oil distributors shall constitute a false tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier has entered it in a false manner.

The tax invoice delivered as oil distributor constitutes a false tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier entered the false name, and it cannot be deemed that the supplier was not aware or was not aware of the fact of false name, and thus the disposition imposing the input tax amount is legitimate.

2010Guhap3327 Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

정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 value-added tax of KRW 28,343,080 for the first period of December 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009 (which appears to have been written in the instant complaint on December 7, 2009) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 1995. 1. 20.부터 〇〇시 〇〇면 〇〇리 543-4에서 '〇〇주유소'라는 상호

As a business operator operating oil sales business, the input tax amount was deducted from the output tax amount under Chapter 6 of the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice of this case"), which was received in purchasing oil from △△ branch (hereinafter referred to as "△△ branch") during the period from February 21, 2008 to May 30, 208 when filing the first value-added tax return for the first period of March 13, 2008. The tax invoice of this case is stated as follows: ① supply value of 34,909,091 won on February 21, 2008; ② supply value of 24,000,000 won on March 13, 208; ③ supply value of 26,363,636 won on April 12, 2008; ④ supply value of supply value of 207,54,536,475,3636,47,536,536,5,278.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on △△ branch, the head of the Dong-based tax office determined that △△ branch issued only a tax invoice without real transactions, and notified the Defendant of the tax invoice in this case as a false tax invoice prepared without real transactions on June 30, 2009. On December 1, 2009, the Defendant issued a correction and notice of KRW 28,343,080 for the first time value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2009 by deducting the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice from the input tax amount. The Defendant reached the Plaintiff on December 7, 2009.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 10, 2010. However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on June 17, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant tax invoice is unlawful since the Plaintiff actually supplied 122,00 liter via △△△△△ branch operating the oil wholesale business six times from February 21, 2008 to May 30, 2008, and deducted the input tax amount of KRW 162,127,273 based on the purchase tax invoice. The instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as tax invoice different from the facts. ② The Plaintiff confirmed the name of the representative of △△△ branch and △△ branch’s office and actually visited △ branch office with the copy of the business registration certificate, and received the transaction list, shipment list, etc., and received the oil transaction. As such, since △△△ branch did not actually supply the goods or services, even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a disguised transaction or processing transaction, it cannot be deemed that there was any negligence by failing to know the fact that △△△ branch was a disguised transaction or processing transaction.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) △△△ was established on September 10, 2007 and closed ex officio on March 31, 2008. The registration certificate of the petroleum sales business in △△△△△ branch is written as follows: (a) succession to the status of △△△ corporation (hereinafter referred to as “△△”) on September 17, 2007; (b) succession to the status of △△△ branch; (c) succession to the status of △△ branch on September 17, 2007; and (d) the representative of △△ branch on 1477-104 floor in △△△△△-dong, △△△△△△△△△-dong, △△△△△△△ branch; (d) the transportation equipment was 000 heading 00, 000, △△△△ branch (Borrower, Kim E, 32 son), 5

(2) On April 15, 2008, the director of the North △△△△ Tax Office filed a charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on April 15, 2008, on the grounds of the suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on February 5, 2010, the Changwon District Court convicted the Defendant on the charge of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. On April 30, 2010, the judgment of the first instance court was handed down on April 25, 2010, which became final and conclusive on June 25, 2010.

(3) On the other hand, △△△ filed a complaint with the relevant agency on September 8, 2008 as "data on the second period of 2007", and on May 28, 2009, the first period of 2008 and the first period of 9.2% of the sales purchase were 9.2% on the data."

(4) The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice and reported the details of the entry and shipment to the Korea National Oil Corporation, and reported that it was purchased from △△, not from △△.

(5) In filing a return of value-added tax on the first quarter of 2008, the Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount of KRW 162,127,00 from the output tax amount based on the instant tax invoice, but △△△ did not report the remainder of KRW 138,127,273 on the basis of the instant tax invoice.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4, 7, 8, Eul 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

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

(A) The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries of the tax invoice refer to cases where the contents of 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 of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

(나) 원고가 이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 물량의 유류를 실제로 매입하여 이를 거래처에 판매하였다고 하더라도, 과연 원고에게 유류를 공급한 거래처가 세금계산서상의 공급자인 △△지였는지에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정사실, 을 5, 10, 11호증(각 가지번호 포함), 증인 곽FF, 강BB의 각 일부 증언 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉,① △△지는 '자료상'인 ●●드로부터 석유판매업 지위를 승계하였고, △△지 역시 2008. 9. 8.과 2009. 5. 28. 2차례 '자료상'으로 고 발된 점,② 원고는 △△지의 영업이사 강BB를 통하여 △△지의 유류를 실제 공급받았다고 주장하고 있으나, 강BB는 △△지에서 근무했는지 여부도 분명하지 아니할 뿐만 아니라 ●●드를 실제로 운영하면서 무거래 허위기재 매출세금계산서를 교부하였다는 범죄사실에 관하여 유죄로 확정된 점,③ 원고는 곽FF이 △△지의 유류를 3-4회 운반해 주었다고 주장하고 있으나, 곽FF은 △△지의 석유판매업등록 당시 신고한 유한회사 □□화물에 지입 또는 근무한 것이 아니라 □□ 0000호(차주 곽FF의 배우자, 30㎘) 차량을 □□시 소재 '◇◇수'에 지입 하고 □□에 있는 '▲▲오일'이라는 대리점에서 운송을 하였던 점,④ 설사 원고의 주장과 같이 곽FF이 △△지의 유류를 운반하였다고 하더라도, 정상적인 유통경로를 거쳐서 유류가 주유소에 배달되는 때에는 정유사의 저유소 등에서 출하당시 발행된 출하전표(출하일시, 거래처명, 출하지, 도착지, 수송장비, 품목 및 출하량, 온도, 비중 등이 기재됨) 4장 중 1장은 주문자가, 1장은 저유소가 각 보관하며, 2장은 해당 유류 운반차량의 운전자에게 교부되어 유류가 배달된 거래처 주유소의 서명을 받아서 그 중 1장은 운전사가, 나머지 1장은 주유소에 교부되는데, 곽FF은 출하전표를 받지 아니하였을 뿐만 아니라 그 출하전표에 출하자, 운반자의 서명도 거의 기재되어 있지 아니한 점,⑤ 원고는 △△지로부터 유류를 구입하였다고 주장하면서도 한국석유공사에는 매입처를 □□로 신고한 점,⑥ 원고는 2008년 제1기분 부가가치세에 대하여 이 사건 세금계산서를 근거로 162,127,000원의 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하였으나 △△지는 위 162,127,000원 중 24,000,000원만 매출로 신고한 점 등을 종합해보면, 이 사건 세금계산서상의 유류 매입처를 △△지라고 보기는 어려우므로, 결국 이 사건 세금계산서는 공급자가 허위로 기재된 세금계산서로 봄이 상당하다.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

(A) The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the person who received another tax invoice is unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact of misrepresentation of the name of the supplier, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of misrepresentation of the name as above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Furthermore, the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact of misrepresentation of the supplier’s business registration certificate, the permit for the sale of the goods or services, and the detailed route and process of the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, etc. are considered as follows: (a) the actual supplier is aware of the supplier; and (b) the fact that there is a sufficient circumstance that the beneficiary was aware of the fact of misrepresentation of the supplier’s trade name, the fact that the supplier’s business registration certificate, the sales permit, the sales specifications of the goods or services, etc. is insufficient to view that the actual supplier’s name.

(나) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정사실과 을 5, 10, 11호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고가 받은 출하전표에 유류의 출하지가 이 사건 거래처의 사업장 소재지와 다른 □□저유소, □□저유소, ▲▲저유소로 다양하게 기재되어 있었음에도 이에 관한 확인을 하지 않고 거래를 계속한 점,② △△지는 2007. 9. 10 개업한 업체로서 이러한 신생업체와 거래하면서 앞서 본 바와 같은 비정상적인 출하전표를 교부받았을 뿐만 아니라 해당 출하전표에 근거하여 저유소에서 △△지로 유류가 실제 출하된 사실이 있었는지 여부를 확인하지 않았던 점,③ 원고는 15년간 유류를 판매한 경력이 있고, 그 거래 당시 △△지의 석유판매업등록증을 확인하였더라면、 유류 운반차량이 실제 운반차량과 다른 점 등을 쉽게 알 수 있었을 것이나 이를 확인하지 아니한 점 등을 종합 해보면, 원고가 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받을 당시 '자료상'인 △△지의 명의위장 사실을 알지 못하였거나 알지 못하였음에 과실이 없었다고 볼 수 없다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.