Cheongbu 201J 3432 ( December 22, 2011)

The Plaintiff purchased waste oil from a foreign ship and sold it to a waste oil recycling business entity.

A closed oil recycling business entity does not directly purchase the oil of this case from the crew of the foreign vessel, but sells it to the waste oil recycling business entity after purchasing the oil of this case from the crew of the foreign vessel.

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

XX Stock Company

Head of Central Tax Office

October 19, 2012

November 16, 2012

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on July 6, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000, Jul. 1, 2011); and the imposition of KRW 000 on August 3, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000, Aug. 1, 201); and KRW 000 on May 1, 2007 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Jul. 1, 201) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (the Plaintiff changed the Plaintiff’s trade name from “OTRS Stock Company” on October 27, 2010 to “OTRS Stock Company”) collected waste oil from domestic and foreign vessels, while running fuel transport business, and sold it to YY (hereinafter “YY”).

B. On the ground that “the Plaintiff sold waste oil equivalent to KRW 000 from 2006 to 2007 and received the price in cash, but failed to issue a tax invoice for it, and thus, omitted a value-added tax return.” On July 1, 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 of value-added tax for KRW 00 of the first return omitted sales amount in 2006 and KRW 000 of the second return omitted sales amount in 2006, value-added tax for KRW 00 of the second return omitted sales amount in 200, and value-added tax for KRW 00 of the first return omitted sales amount in 2007, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 27, 2011, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 22, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while transporting waste oil purchased from a foreign seafarer directly, did not sell waste oil equivalent to KRW 00 to Y, on a different premise, because the Plaintiff signed on the English receipt, which delivered Y instead of Y to a foreign seafarer, and transferred Y to Y. Thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

【former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010)】

Article 21 (Settlement and Correction)

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of value-added tax or tax refund for

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where, in filing the final tax return, the list of the total sales tax invoices or the list of the total tax invoices by customer, is not submitted, or all or part of the entries in the submitted list of the total sales punishment tax invoices or the list of the total

4. Where the value-added tax is likely to be evaded due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

In full view of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 8-1, 2-7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts are recognized.

A) Some business operators operating an oil tank in Busan port have purchased illegally oil for ships at home and abroad (part of oil seems to be a stolen oil; hereinafter referred to as “instant oil”) and have sold it to Y engaged in oil refining and waste oil recycling business. The instant oil can be used as fuel without having to go through a refining process, etc. as it is, most of the instant oil remaining after navigation, not waste oil.

B)Y purchased waste oil, the account transfer was made, but if the oil was purchased, the price was paid in cash, and entered as waste oil purchase cost in the cash receipt and receipt book.

C) As Y representative Y Y YO did not have a tax invoice for the instant oil, Y requested YE, etc., who is the operator of the instant vessel, to obtain the signature of a foreign seafarer in English document stating that Y would have purchased waste oil directly from the seafarers of domestic and foreign vessels, Y would be deemed to have purchased waste oil directly from the seafarers of the instant vessels, and Y would have requested YE, etc., who is the operator of the instant vessel, to obtain the signature of a foreign seafarer in foreign vessel in English document stating that Y would “the waste oil was discharged to the Plaintiff and received the source in return.” Korea E, etc. received the signature from the

D) The Y representative YCC stated in the police that “YY did not purchase any actual waste oil from a foreign vessel, but paid to a foreign vessel the amount stated in the English receipt as a means of rebates, and that “Y was instructed to receive an English receipt as to the money in the name of rebates from a foreign vessel”.

E) At the time of the substitution investigation with Y, NewD, which operated a large-scale company, stated in the police that “it did not receive a tax invoice while purchasing the instant oil, if it was issued a tax invoice by selling it to Y, it would pay the tax, and if it was issued a tax invoice, Y did not issue a separate tax invoice.” At the police station, E requested that Y receive an English receipt from a foreign vessel without real transactions due to lack of evidence of the purchase of non-data, and Y received a foreign vessel’s English receipt from Y, and delivered it to Y, as described in the above English receipt, Y purchased waste oil from a foreign vessel, and paid the price.”

F) The confirmation document prepared around October 2010 by KimGGG, who worked for the accounts of Y, stated that “from around 2006 to 2008, purchased waste oil in cash in addition to the tax invoice received from the level-driven excursion ship operation company, including the Plaintiff and △△△,” and the confirmation document prepared by the actual operator of △△ excursion business, stated that “Y was issued a tax invoice while supplying ship oil to Y. However, other than that, it supplied Y with waste oil directly purchased from Y in cash from 2007, 2007, 1200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2008, and 200, Y’s employees KimGGGG, and omitted the report on value-added tax for the waste oil sales.”

G) Y and its representative director testified to the effect that Y and Y were not supplied with ship oil by a sudden excursion ship operation company, including the Plaintiff and △△△, but did not receive a purchase tax invoice. Y was indicted by Busan District Court Decision 201Da8107 and Y was sentenced to a fine of KRW 000 and HuCC was sentenced to a one-year punishment. △△△△, as an operator in the name of △△△ milk business, and △ F’s wife Kim H was present as a witness of the instant case, and Y testified testified to the effect that Y again purchased waste oil from the FF at the site and sold money again.

2) Determination

The above facts are acknowledged as follows: ① in order to purchase the oil of this case from domestic and foreign vessels, the Y must consult with the owner of the disposal authority; ② there is no evidence to find such fact; ② although the Plaintiff could easily purchase oil with foreign vessels in the process of waste oil collection and then sell Y again at low prices, there is no reason to only receive transportation charges and only for oil transport for Y; ③ there is no reason to prepare a certificate unfavorable to △△△, Kim H’s △; ② FF did not have any reason to believe that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to directly purchase the oil of this case on the grounds that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no false fact that YG employees of Y and Y’s YGG purchase of the oil of this case, ④ purchased the oil of this case by the police and foreign vessels, and that there was no reason to believe that there was no evidence to believe that it was no false fact that it was no more than the Plaintiff’s purchase of the oil of this case’s domestic and foreign vessels.

3. Conclusion

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