Incheon District Court 2012Guhap3990 ( December 07, 2012)

early 2010 Heavy2504 (Law No. 112, 2012)

The plaintiff's good faith and negligence that the oil supplier received a tax invoice different from the fact can not be recognized.

(1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff handles oil for a long period of time, purchases oil at low cost, falsely prepares a oil list, the place of delivery is also indicated by another business entity, and the tank number and delivery number are not indicated in the ship list, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence that the supplier received different tax invoices cannot be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu2114 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Corporate Tax, etc.

AAA Section 1. Oil station

the director of the tax office of Western

Incheon District Court Decision 2012Guhap3990 Decided December 7, 2012

July 17, 2013

August 21, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of the second term portion of value-added tax on September 6, 2009, the first term portion of value-added tax in 2007, the first term portion of OOOO in 2008, the second term portion of OOOOO in 2007, and the second term portion of corporate tax in 2008, the second term OOOOOO in 207, and the OOOOO in 2008 shall be revoked.

This court's decision is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.