Cho High Court Decision 201Na4781 ( December 08, 2011)

No good or without fault may be recognized when the Plaintiff, as a gas station supplier, receives a false tax invoice from the supplier.

In light of the fact that the shipment slip is insufficient, that the oil was supplied at a price lower than normal prices, and that the storage place was not confirmed, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was at fault of having known or failed to know that the nominal supplier was the actual counterparty of the transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Bosa

Head of Chungcheong Tax Office

May 17, 2012

June 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 10, 201, the part of the value-added tax of KRW 000, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on August 10, 201, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2008 to 2008, the Plaintiff operates a gas station with the trade name of OOri 000 to OO station.

B. In 2010, the Plaintiff received five tax invoices of KRW 000 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices”) from B Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B Energy”) during the 1st taxable period of the value-added tax, and paid a return of L/C value for the year 2010 by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. On August 10, 201, the Defendant, on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was false, notified the Plaintiff of the decision of correction of value-added tax amount KRW 000 (including additional tax) for the first quarter of 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, evidence 6, evidence 12, and evidence 12, and evidence 4 (each number is included, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff did not know that each of the instant tax invoices was false, and confirmed the B-Energy business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, etc., and remitted the transaction price to the account under the name of B-Energy, and completed the verification and evidence expenses necessary for the ordinary transactions, such as the issuance of tax invoices and shipping slips at the time of the transaction, and did not know such circumstances. Therefore, among the instant dispositions made on different premise, the Defendant’s disposition, which was conducted on different premise, exceeds KRW 00 won imposed by the Plaintiff after deducting the input tax amount for one tax invoice.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier, the actual supplier and the supplier are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent on the part of the supplier without knowing the disguised fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). In this case, the supplier’s business registration certificate, etc. cannot be deemed to have been negligent on the part of the supplier, solely on the basis of the following: (a) the process of issuing and delivering the tax invoice; (b) the size and market price of the goods or services supplied; and (c) the specific route in which the goods or services are supplied; and (d) the specific route in which the goods or services are supplied; and (d) the supplier’s name is not the data.

2) In light of the above legal principles, each evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and health team alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact of use of B-Energy and was not negligent due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Rather, according to Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 11, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 3, the issuer of each shipment ticket which the plaintiff received in relation to each of the tax invoices of this case is "CC Petroleum Chemical" (hereinafter referred to as "CC Petroleum Chemical"), and the shipment is composed of "CC Petroleum Chemical". The above shipment chart contains no temperature entry, and the date of shipment is the same as the one mentioned in the first shipment, and the B Energy receives purchase tax invoices equivalent to 00 won fromCC petroleum chemical during the first supply period of value-added tax in 2010, and the above tax invoices are all processed without real trade, and it is recognized that the plaintiff was not aware of the actual use of the oil market, and that it is not necessary to establish the normal distribution structure of the oil market, including those that the supplier was not aware of the actual use of the oil market, and that it is not necessary to establish the normal distribution structure of the oil market and its actual use of the oil market, and that the plaintiff did not know that the oil market was not used.

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.