early 2011 High Court Decision 0420 ( December 15, 2011)

It is true that the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence are not recognized by a false tax invoice.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff, while running oil wholesale and retail business for 18 years, appears to be well aware of the actual state and risk of the transaction in data, the false entry of the shipment slips, the purchase price lower than the market price, the transaction partner did not store or transport oil in the oil storage place, and the tax invoices issued or issued by each transaction partner are revealed to be false. The Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault cannot be recognized, in full view of the following:

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

AAA Energy Corporation

The superintendent of the tax office

May 8, 2013

June 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Each disposition of the value-added tax for the first term portion of 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2010 (including additional tax of 000 won) and value-added tax for the second term portion of 2009 (including additional tax of 000 won) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a gas station from December 1, 2008 to the name of "BB gas station in Suwon-si Odong 000 to "OB gas station in Suwon-si" (hereinafter referred to as "gas station in this case").

"The plaintiff received each tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice in this case") from OO oil manufacturing corporation, Co., Ltd., Ltd., DD Energy, Co., Ltd., and EEEx, and FF Energy (hereinafter referred to as "the transaction parties in this case") as listed below during the value-added tax period, and declared the value-added tax including the amount of the supply in the input tax subject to deduction. The Vice Director General of the Central District Tax Office reported each of the transaction parties in this case as the data that issued false sales and purchase tax invoice without real transaction, and notified the defendant of the taxation data. Accordingly, on August 1, 2010, the defendant denied the deduction of the input tax invoice in this case, and notified the defendant of the taxation data for the first term portion (including the additional tax), and the additional tax for the second term (2000 won) for the second term (200 won) for the second term (200 won).

D. On November 24, 2010, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Board of Audit and Inspection on November 24, 201, but was dismissed on December 15, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from each of the instant transaction parties, and thus, cannot be deemed as constituting a false tax invoice, and even if the actual supplier of domestic oil is not a transaction party of the instant case, the Plaintiff was unaware of it, and was not aware of it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

A) It is necessary for a taxpayer who is liable to pay value-added tax to prove that a tax invoice submitted by a person liable to pay value-added tax on the basis of input tax was falsely prepared without a real transaction, or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and that it is proved by a tax office, and that the actual transaction with a supplier listed in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer is considerably false, it is necessary for the taxpayer to prove that it is easy to present data, such as books and documentary evidence, regarding the fact that the transaction with the supplier listed in the tax invoice is actually conducted with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 200). In addition, those who are liable to issue a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act should be deemed to have formed a nominal legal relationship with the supplier, and those who actually provided goods or services with the supplier, not with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do42075.

B) The plaintiff's tax invoice was entered in the list of its customers, and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 (the number of its customers). The plaintiff's tax invoices were entered in the list of its customers, and the plaintiff's tax invoices were entered in the list of its customers, and the plaintiff's tax invoices were not entered in the list of its customers, and the plaintiff's tax invoices were not entered in the list of their respective tax invoices, and the plaintiff's tax invoices were not entered in the list of its actual transaction partners, and the plaintiff's tax invoices were not entered in the list of its actual transaction partners, and the plaintiff's tax invoices were not entered in the list of its actual transaction partners, and the plaintiff's tax invoices were not entered in the list of its actual transaction partners and were not entered in the list of their respective tax invoices, and the plaintiff's total tax invoices were not entered in the 20th domestic tax offices or 20th domestic tax office's supply of each of the above transaction partners' 30th domestic tax offices or 20th domestic tax offices.

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

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice, and that the person who received the other tax invoice was not aware of the fact in the name of the tax invoice, and that there is no negligence on the part of the person who claimed the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) Even if the oil supplier did not know that the oil supplier was not the actual supplier of the oil, and that the oil supplier was not the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier did not know that the oil supplier was not the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier was not the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier did not know that the oil supplier was not the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier was not the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier did not know whether the oil supplier was the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier did not know that the oil supplier was the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier did not know that the supplier was the actual supplier of the oil, and that the supplier did not know that the supplier was the actual supplier's oil sales time, and that the supplier did not know whether the supplier was the actual supplier's oil supplier's oil sales time, and that the supplier did not know whether the supplier was the actual supplier's oil supplier's oil sales time, and that the supplier was not the supplier's 1, 2, and 3.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.