National Tax Service Review Division 2012-0050 (2012.09)

No good faith or negligence shall be recognized by a false tax invoice;

The Customer does not use the leased oil storage facilities, and the shipment slips cannot be deemed to be normal, and the business entity that the said business entity purchased oil constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact because it was proved to be material and constitutes a false tax invoice. The Plaintiff was negligent in failing to verify the facts, even though there was a significant room for recognizing the fact of the use of the oil station for a long time.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap2493 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

leBB et al., a litigation receipt of the network U.A.

Head of the Office of Government

March 5, 2013

March 19, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on March 2, 2012, which was made by the Network United StatesA on March 2, 2012, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The deceased died on December 10, 2012 during the trial, and the heir took over the legal proceedings. From December 22, 2000 to December 22, 2000, the deceased operated the gas station under the trade name of "CC oil station", and on March 2, 2010, the first additional tax rate of 200 to 40 Etaco Co., Ltd. (the head office: Seoul Dongdaemun OOOOO 000 Etaco 000. hereinafter referred to as "D oil") was 0.5 (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case"), which included 200 won in the total supply price of 0.0 won in total, and the tax invoice of this case was 00 won in the National Tax Service's purchase price of 200 won in total (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case"), and the defendant, on March 2, 2012, issued the tax invoice of this case, 200 won in question.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, and the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including household numbers), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the deceased actually purchased oil from D's oil and received the issue of tax invoices, the issue cannot be deemed as constituting a false tax invoice. Even if the issue falls under a false tax invoice, the deceased constitutes a bona fide transaction party, since the deceased completed necessary confirmation and evidence expenses in normal transactions. Accordingly, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Whether the issue issue tax invoice is a false tax invoice

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are different from the facts. It refers to the cases where the contents of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier of the goods or services or the price and time of the supplier of the goods or services despite the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). It refers to whether the transaction partner who supplied the deceased oil to the supplier of the tax invoice is D's issue, which is the supplier of the tax invoice. In full view of the arguments in the first and third items, and fourth items, the tax invoice is similar ? FD ? ? ? The tax invoice is issued as 'the gas station of the deceased', but the related shipment table is not 'the oil station of the deceased ? 's actual purchase of the D' 'D', and the plaintiffs's purchase of the 'D 's actual purchase of the D '.

2) Whether the deceased constitutes good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier are not aware of the names of the suppliers, and that the supplier was not aware of the actual supplier's shipment, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the actual supplier's shipment time before the date and time, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the supplier's shipment time and time, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the supplier's shipment time and time, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the supplier's shipment time and time, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the supplier's shipment time and time, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the supplier's shipment time and time, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the supplier's shipment time and time, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not the supplier's sales permit.

Then, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.