Whether it is a false tax invoice and whether it is a good faith transaction party

It is reasonable to deem that each of the instant tax invoices received by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice, namely, a false tax invoice, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of each of the instant tax invoices, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Guhap5860 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Park ○

○ Head of tax office

May 12, 2015

June 2, 2015

1. Of the instant lawsuit, each disposition imposing global income tax listed in Nos. 4, 5, and 6 of the separate imposition details;

'The party tax amount alleged by the plaintiff's claim' means each part seeking revocation of the portion exceeding each tax amount described.

shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

“The party tax amount asserted by the Plaintiff” in the imposition disposition of each tax on the attached Form by the Defendant against the Plaintiff.

All parts exceeding each tax amount stated shall be revoked (the plaintiff shall be primarily responsible for the imposition of the attached Form 1.

No. 5 (hereinafter referred to as "each tax imposition disposition on the details of the attached imposition") shall be limited to the number of No. 5, such as "No. 5"

specified) claim revocation of part of the global income tax disposition, and preliminary description No. 6.

A claim is filed for the revocation of some of the global income tax disposition, but the two claims are primarily and conjunctive.

The latter’s claim is unlawful as seen below. Thus, the latter’s claim is not in a relationship.

It is to be determined on such premise. In addition, from the application for correction of the purport of the claim made on May 12, 2015, the term "31,329,924 won, which is stated as the amount of global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff in August 1, 2013 as of August 1, 2013, "37,210,162 won", and the amount of global income tax imposed on the Plaintiff in September 1, 2012 as of September 1, 201.

‘13,837,489 Won seems to be a clerical error in ‘13,839,917 Won’).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a business operator operating a gas station from September 30, 2010 to the trade name of “AA gas station in ○○ Dong-dong in Gyeyang-gu, Ansan-gu.”

B. The Plaintiff: ① BB Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) in the second taxable period of value added tax in 2010

Purchase tax invoices of KRW 602,663,636 of the total value of supply from the ‘Energy', the Stock Exchange

The supply price of KRW 25,545,455, each of the CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC Co., Ltd.") receives one purchase tax invoice of KRW 25,55,45, and ② purchase tax invoice of KRW 352,763,636, and KRW 3366, and KRW 330,236,364, respectively, from the supply price of KRW 330,236, and KRW 364, respectively, from the supply price of KRW 293,890,90, and KRW 908 in the first VAT taxable period of the value-added tax in 201.

C. After that, the Plaintiff needs to pay the value of supply after deducting the input tax amount according to the above tax invoice.

Value-added tax for the first term of 22,953,589 won, value-added tax for the second term of 201, value-added tax for the second term of 201, global income tax for the year 2010, 3,018, 392 won and global income tax for the year 2010 and for the year 2011.

7,962,09 won was each reported and paid. However, the Defendant denied the relevant input tax deduction on the ground that each of the above tax invoices received from BB Energy, etc. was false, and imposed an additional tax on the non-issuance of a certificate of expenditure under the Income Tax Act. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that the value-added tax for the second period of July 2010 was 116,53,429 won, the total income tax for the first period of 2010 was 12,564,181 won, and the Defendant issued a notice to the Plaintiff that the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 2011 was 48,94,592 won, the total income tax for the second period of 2011 was 16,53,429 won, and the amount of the value-added tax was 12,564,181 won.

D. On July 6, 2012 and September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff served a notice of tax payment under each of the above taxation dispositions.

After September 28, 2012, the value-added tax for the second period of 2010 among the above taxation dispositions to the head of the tax office of △△△.

Although an objection was filed against a disposition to increase or decrease the value-added tax for the first and second years of 201, the objection was dismissed on November 22, 2012. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with such objection, filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for review on February 20, 2013, and included each request for review on the amount of global income tax increase or decrease for the second and second years of 2010 and 2011. However, on April 9, 2013, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for review on the ground that the request period for review was expired on the ground that the request period for review on the revocation of each request for review on the amount of global income tax correction for the second and second years of 2010 and the second years of 2011 and the remaining request for review (the part seeking revocation of each tax correction disposition for second and second years of 201

E. On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. On August 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of the purchase tax invoice of KRW 43,839,000 from BB energy in the taxable period of the first quarter of the Value-Added Tax for the first quarter of the Value-Added Tax, other than each of the said tax invoices; the purchase tax invoice of KRW 314,906,00 from GG Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GG Energy”); and the purchase tax invoice of KRW 170,727,00 fromCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GG Energy”); and on August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff issued an additional notice of the value-added tax for the first quarter of the year of 2011 on August 1, 2013 on global income tax amounting to KRW 88,438,673, and global income tax amounting to 20,370,245 won.

F. In addition, the Defendant imposed value added tax on BB energy in 201 as a result of the tax investigation on BB energy.

The plaintiff was found to be a processing transaction on the grounds that the total sales and purchase of BB energy were made.

A tax invoice received from BB Energy during the taxable period is a false tax invoice;

On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a notice of increase in the value-added tax of KRW 8,194,439 for the first quarter of 201 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices, including those received by the Plaintiff from BB energy,CC companies, DD energy, F Energy, Lee○, and GG Energy).

G. On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a tax payment notice based on the Defendant’s taxation disposition as of August 1, 2013, and on October 15, 2013, the Defendant issued a tax payment notice based on the Defendant’s taxation disposition as of October 15, 2013, and thereafter appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 5, 2013. On September 3, 2014, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the period for filing an appeal seeking revocation of the taxation disposition as of August 1, 2013, among the Plaintiff’s above appeal, was expired, and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 5, Eul evidence 1, 10, 11, 13 through 17 (each provisional lot number)

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The part of the instant lawsuit demanding partial revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax stated in No. 6.

Judgment of ex officio on legal status

In case of a disposition of increase or decrease, the initial report or decision shall be incorporated into the disposition of increase or decrease, independent; and

Inasmuch as the value of existence should be lost, in principle, objection to the initial report or decision shall be raised.

A disposition of increase or correction shall be subject to adjudication of an appeal litigation regardless of the expiration of the period, etc.

A person liable for duty may also claim any illegality in relation to the initial report or decision in the appeal litigation.

The interpretation is reasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17390 decided May 14, 2009).

On September 1, 2012, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff on September 1, 2012, No. 6, stating that the global income tax for the year 201 would be adjusted to KRW 5,877,818, but again, on August 1, 2013, the Defendant imposed global income tax on the Plaintiff as stated in subparagraph 5, stating that the global income tax for the year 201 would be adjusted to KRW 23,370,245, as seen earlier. As such, it is unlawful that the Plaintiff’s disposition of global income tax for the imposition of global income tax as stated in subparagraph 6, which was absorbed into the disposition of increased or decreased as above, loses its independent existence value.

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2010 as indicated in No. 4 among the instant lawsuit, and indicated No. 5.

Part of the imposition disposition of global income tax for the year 201 and the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of August 1, 2013, which sought revocation of each part of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2011, is limited to the period for a request for examination or a request for adjudication prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes

(c)

(b) A person who is dissatisfied with a disposition of imposition of value-added tax and global income tax; and

Subject to a request for examination or adjudgment as prescribed in Articles 56 (2) and 55 of the Act in accordance with the same Act.

only may institute an administrative litigation against the relevant disposition, and a request for examination or trial at this time shall be filed.

A request for examination or adjudgment must be lawful due to compliance with the deadline for request;

If the procedure of the previous trial is illegal due to the lapse of the period, the administrative litigation also shall be the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Inasmuch as it cannot be deemed as having undergone the necessary transfer procedure prescribed by this Act, it is unlawful (Supreme Court Decision 25 June 25, 1991).

Article 61(1) and (2) and Article 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8091, Feb. 1, 2009). A request for review or adjudgment on a disposition of national tax imposition shall be filed within 90 days (within 90 days from the date the decision on a request for review or adjudgment is notified) from the date the relevant disposition is known (where a request for review or adjudgment

On the other hand, the disposition of increase shall only be omitted without filing the initial report or having the amount of tax determined.

the tax base and tax amount as a whole by including the increased portion, not the addition thereof;

Inasmuch as a corrective measure is re-determined, the initial measure is absorption into the corrective measure.

, as a matter of course, compliance with legitimate pre-trial procedures, filing period, etc., a disposition of increase or correction

Based on the criteria, determination must be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du17390, May 14, 2009).

Based on the above legal principles, each part of the instant lawsuit belonging to the year 2010 and 2011 is subject to global income tax

As to the legitimacy of the part seeking partial revocation of a disposition, the health expenses, and the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff filed a tax return and payment of global income tax 7,962,09 won for 2010 and 201.7.20 years thereafter (i.e., 12,564,181 won for global income tax on 2010 and 20.2 years thereafter), and subsequently, issued a tax notice of increase 23,370,245 won for 20 years thereafter (i.e., 200 won for 20 years thereafter), and issued a tax notice of increase 23,370,245 won for 20 years later for 20 years later for 201.3 years thereafter for 20 years later for 20 years later for 20 years later for 20 years later for 20 years later for 20 years later for 201.3 years later for 3 years later for 20 years later for 20 years later for 20 years later for 3 years later for 2010 and later for 23 years later for 2013 years later for 20 years thereafter for 2013 years later for .3 years thereafter.

Next, among the instant lawsuits, value-added tax for the first period of August 1, 2011 imposed by the Defendant on August 1, 2013.

With respect to the legitimacy of the part seeking partial revocation of the disposition, the health room for the plaintiff to the defendant

The value-added tax for the first term portion per year was reported and paid in 22,953,589 won, and the defendant on July 1, 2012 to the plaintiff.

The fact that the value-added tax for the first term portion in 201 was 16,533,429 won, the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2011 on August 1, 2013 was 88,438,673 won, and the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2011 on October 1, 2013 was 8,194,439 won, and that the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2013 was 8,194,439 won. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s first term value-added tax for the first term portion in 2011 was ended by the correction on October 1, 201

236,120,130 won (i.e., KRW 22,953,589 for return and payment + KRW 116,53,429 for the correction of the increase as of July 1, 2012 + KRW 88,438,673 for the correction of the increase as of August 1, 2013 + KRW 8,194,439 for the correction of the increase as of October 1, 2013). The previous disposition for the increase of value-added tax was determined as of August 1, 2013 by the Defendant’s first-term increase of value-added tax for the first period as of August 1, 2013, it cannot be deemed that the previous disposition for the cancellation of the first-term increase as of October 1, 2013 for the first-term increase as well as the subsequent disposition for the cancellation of the first-term increase as of KRW 100 for the first-term increase as of October 21, 2015.

4. Determination as to the legality of each disposition imposing value-added tax as stated in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff is actually supplied with oil from the above business partners, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s respective tax systems of this case.

Since the certificate was delivered, each of the tax invoices of this case is different from the facts.

(2) In addition, even if the Plaintiff did not do so, since the Plaintiff received oil without knowing that it was a disguised business operator even though the Plaintiff fulfilled his/her duty of care at the time of the purchase of oil, it constitutes a transaction party of good faith and negligence. Thus, the Defendant’s taxation of value-added tax for the second period of 2010 as stated in No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 201 as stated in No. 201 as stated in No. 201 as to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s legitimate tax amount for the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is different from the facts

A) Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201)

In cases where entries in a tax invoice are different from the facts, an input tax amount under paragraph (2) 2 shall be calculated from the output tax

not to deduct, but to the effect that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts.

In fact, the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is only nominal.

If there is a separate person to whom such person belongs, the person to whom such person belongs shall be liable for tax payment.

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that a tax invoice shall be

Form of a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services with respect to the contents of the

A person who actually supplies or is supplied with such goods or services, notwithstanding any entries therein;

It refers to cases in which the value, timing, etc. do not coincide with each other (Supreme Court Decision 196.12. 1996).

10. Business operators who supply under the former Value-Added Tax Act;

and then deliver a tax invoice to the entity receiving the tax invoice, and further,

A person liable to pay value-added tax shall be a business operator, a supplier, or a supplied business operator, or nominal.

an entrepreneur that supplies goods or services in fact, not a person that forms legal relations; or

Transactions that actually supply goods or services to a person who receives or is supplied with such services;

one person shall be deemed as one person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1715, Jul. 24, 2008).

B) In light of the above legal principles, Nos. 3 through 12, 14, 18, 19, 21 as to the instant case

The following circumstances recognized by each description of evidence (including a serial number) and the purport of the entire pleading:

BB among the Plaintiff’s business partners described as the supplier in each of the instant tax invoices

In the case of energy,CC, DD Energy, FF Energy and GG Energy, on-site investigations by tax authorities;

As a result, it is confirmed that at least 99% of the purchase tax invoice received in the course of oil trade is a processing transaction.

is found to be a disguised entrepreneur established solely for the purpose of issuing false tax invoices without real transactions.

(2) In the case of EE oil (representative: 00) from among the above customers, oil at the place of business

There is no scam of carrying out storage and transport-related business, and this section is related to this case.

Under an investigation conducted by the Customs Office, and without real transactions with the Plaintiff, the sales charter to the Plaintiff

(3) The plaintiff's above transaction parties have issued and delivered a false statement

The types and quantities stated in each of the instant tax invoices from other transaction parties during the period of taxation

In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff actually purchased the oil, the Plaintiff

each of the tax invoices of this case delivered to the supplier is false, i.e., a false invoice.

It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff constitutes another tax invoice. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(c)

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

(A) the actual supplier and the supplier under a tax invoice are supplied with any other tax invoice;

Special circumstances that did not know the name of the gold account statement and did not have any negligence.

Unless otherwise specified, the person who receives the input tax shall not be entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount, and the person who receives the

The fact that there is no negligence in not knowing the fact that the name was stolen shall be asserted to deduct or refund the input tax amount.

Any person who is liable to prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s name-oriented resignation of each of the instant tax invoices

As to whether a person was not aware of the room and was not negligent in not knowing it, the health room, as seen earlier.

Each evidence may be identified by adding to each part of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 8 (including paper numbers):

Each condition, i.e., ① a shipment slip issued at the time of the shipment of oil at the oil reservoir shall be normal oil.

The plaintiff is an important material proving that the oil is traded through the process of entry, and the plaintiff is BB energy.

In light of the fact that the shipment slips received from the company, etc. do not properly state the temperature, weight, shipping time, etc. of oil that can confirm whether the oil is distributed normally, and thus, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s children as the shipment slips issued and received in the normal distribution process. ② The Plaintiff’s children, who is the actual operator of the above AAH, was subject to a tax investigation by the tax authorities in relation to the instant case, and the Plaintiff prepared a transaction log in which the relevant transaction date, kind, flow, oil company, vehicle number, etc. were entered, but there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not know that there was a lack of knowledge of each of the instant tax invoices. However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff did not know that the vehicle number entered in the transaction log at the time of the transaction or the vehicle number entered in the shipment log and the vehicle number entered in the shipment slip, vehicle type, oil type, flow quantity, etc. stated to the effect that the Plaintiff stated to the effect that “AAH did not know the authenticity of each of the instant tax invoices.”

5. Conclusion

Thus, among the lawsuit of this case, each global income tax described in No. 4, 5, and 6 against the plaintiff by the defendant among the lawsuit of this case

The term "reasonable tax amount claimed by the plaintiff" in the disposition of imposition is sought to revoke the portion exceeding each tax amount described.

Since the part is unlawful, it is dismissed, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed as it is without merit.

The decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices.