Whether a tax invoice different from the facts related to oil purchase has been received

The purchasing agency is a false tax invoice on the basis of the data that only issued a tax invoice without real transactions, and the representative is convicted of having been registered, and the reported oil storage facilities, transportation vehicles, etc. are not used at all due to the receipt of the registration of the petroleum sales business operator.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 91,896,100 on May 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. From November 15, 2003, the Plaintiff was entrusted with the operation of the BB gas station, a direct gas station operated by AAAM Bank Co., Ltd., and completed business registration on February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of KRW 31 fromCC Energy (hereinafter “CC Energy”) during the 2007 taxable period for the 2nd value-added tax, and received the tax invoice of KRW 686,509,089 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) from the output tax amount, and filed and paid the value-added tax by deducting the amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the said tax invoice from the output tax amount.

B. On May 1, 2008, the director of the Busan Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation of tracking the distribution process of the aboveCC energy and notified the Defendant of the taxation data on the basis of the data thatCC Energy issued without actual transaction. Accordingly, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff could not have actually purchased oil from the aboveCC energy and the actual supplier of oil constitutes a different tax invoice on the ground that the above tax invoice constitutes a different fact. Accordingly, on May 1, 2009, the Defendant deducted the relevant input tax amount pursuant to Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826 of Dec. 31, 2007) and imposed the Plaintiff KRW 271,91,896,100 on May 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on October 20, 2009 on June 26, 2009, but was dismissed on December 31, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1 through No. 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's principal

The Plaintiff actually received oil fromCC energy, and thus, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice, and even if it is a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff is a bona fide transaction party who did not know that it was the nominal owner ofCC energy and did not know that it was not negligent. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition, which the Defendant denied the input tax deduction related to the instant tax invoice, was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On July 1, 2007, after completing the registration of petroleum retail business on June 19, 2007,CC energy was registered as an oil wholesale business and closed on April 24, 2008. During the above project period, there was no shipping of oil in the name ofCC energy at any oil reservoir across the country. However, even though it concluded a lease contract for oil storage facilities of Busan Tank Terminal Terminal Terminal Co., Ltd, for petroleum retail business registration, there was no number of parcels using oil reservoir and vehicles, etc.

(2) Since July 2007, 2007, DuD, a real business operator of the aboveCC energy, used the title of “here-free duties by opening the so-called “CC energy” in order to obtain profits by receiving or delivering a false tax invoice without a real transaction. Since around July 2007, DuD used the title of “CC energy” to issue sales tax invoices in the name ofCC to gas stations without real transaction and to receive certain fees, and made it difficult to secure the gas stations that are exempt from non-taxable material supply to the gas stations.

(3) On the other hand, when the oil is delivered through the normal distribution route to the gas station, one of the orderer out of Chapter 4 of the shipment slips issued at the time of shipment at the oil reservoir, etc. (the date and time of shipment, the name of the transaction partner, the arrival place, the place of arrival, the transportation equipment, the volume of the goods and the quantities of the goods, temperature, weight, etc.) shall be kept, one of the two copies shall be delivered to the oil station, and one of the two copies shall be delivered to the oil station by the driver, and the other one shall be delivered to the oil station.CC energy did not issue the shipment slip to the delivery operator on the day of shipment, and it did not issue the shipment slip to the oil station, after the oil was delivered, entered the shipment box and the driver in the oil station in fact using the computer and the set up a false shipment slip in the oil station, and sent it in accordance with the relevant tax invoice.

(4) The director of Busan Regional Tax Office: (a) filed an accusation with the investigating authority on the basis of data thatCC energy issued a false tax invoice without supplying oil; and (b) as a result, DD issued a false sales tax invoice of KRW 21,090,909 to each gas station including the Plaintiff at Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2009No2687) on March 25, 2010; and (c) received a false purchase tax invoice of KRW 33,813,257,915 on the ground that it received a false purchase tax invoice of KRW 33,813,257,915 on the ground that it received a false purchase tax invoice of KRW 1,6 months and KRW 7,000,000,000, and the above judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court and became final and conclusive on July 2

(5) From April 1994 to February 2007, the Plaintiff worked at the Bosil Oil Station in Bosil Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., and from around November 2003 to around February 2007, the Plaintiff entrusted the management of the above BB oil station to the direct oil station in the AAsil Bank Co., Ltd., and thereafter, during the process of accepting and operating the above, the Plaintiff recommended transactions on the ground that the Este, which was to work as an employee at the Daejeon Branch ofCC Energy Daejeon, was 20-30 won per liter per liter. At the time, the Este received an order from its customer as well as the Plaintiff, to contact the Plaintiff, so that it may deliver without oil to the Plaintiff by contact with non-taxable oil distributors. At the time of receiving the oil, the Plaintiff was supplied with the oil tax invoice in the name of the Plaintiff at the time of supplying the oil under the name of the Plaintiff, and was supplied with the oil back to the Plaintiff by mail.

(6) During the instant disposition process, the date of shipment indicated in the 31 table for the preparation ofCC Energy submitted by the Plaintiff, and the vehicle number to each oil reservoir and each oil reservoir, based on which the relevant quantities were shipped at each time. However, the fact that the oil shipped was found to have never been actually shipped to the Plaintiff orCC energy.

(7) The Plaintiff received the business registration certificate, the petroleum sales agency registration, the account number, etc. ofCC energy, and remitted the price to the said account as oil price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 9 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 8, Eul witness right E testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice is different from the fact

(A) The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries of the tax invoice refer to cases where the contents of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person who actually supplied or is supplied with the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

(B) As to the Plaintiff’s actual purchase of oil in the amount specified in the instant tax invoice during the instant taxable period and the sales thereof to the customer, the Defendant also recognized that the transaction partner, who supplied the Plaintiff, actually purchased and sold the oil in the instant tax invoice. As to whether it is “CC energy” on the tax invoice, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged as follows: ①CC energy was established for the purpose of only a false tax invoice without a real transaction from the beginning, and DoD, which is the actual operator, was convicted on the ground that it issued or received only a tax invoice without a real transaction, was issued or received by the tax authorities, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon conviction of the Plaintiff on the ground that it received and delivered a false tax invoice for purchase and sales; ②CC energy did not have received oil from any oil reservoir across the country during the instant taxable period, and it was merely difficult to view the Plaintiff’s actual purchase and sales of oil in the instant tax invoice for the reason that it did not have any other reasons to view that the Plaintiff purchased and sold the oil for the purpose of purchasing it.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is a bona fide trader

(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 supplier, who was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the person who was provided with the tax invoice shall prove that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, who was unaware of the fact that he was unaware of the name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 2

(B) First, as to whether the Plaintiff was not aware of the disguised fact in the name of the instant tax invoice, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s failure to know, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s testimony on the following: (a) evidence Nos. 5 through 7; (b) evidence Nos. 9-1 through 5; and (c) evidence to prove otherwise.

(C) Rather, in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the facts acknowledged earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent, even though it knew or did not know that the Plaintiff was not a person supplying the instant oil.

In other words, the Plaintiff: (a) since around 194, from around November 2002, operated a gas station directly from around November, 200; (b) it appears that the Plaintiff had been aware of the normal structure of oil supply, distribution channels, general forms and methods of the industry, and the actual situation of transactions in the oil industry through diverse experiences; and (c) the Plaintiff started transactions after hearing the speech that there was low-value oil from CCE, an employee of CC energy, and was supplied with a low-value oil vehicle than the market price. At the time of the transaction, the Plaintiff was not negligent in supplying CC’s new data on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive an order to supply 7 days after the date of the purchase of the oil, as well as the so-called CC’s new data and/or 7 days after the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive an order to supply CC’s new data and/or 7 days after the date of the purchase of the oil.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was a bona fide and negligent supplier. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not deduct input tax amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.