Cho Jae-2015- Daejeon-3802 ( October 15, 2016)

The plaintiff does not belong to the trading party with good faith and negligence.

The purchase tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and the plaintiff does not constitute a transaction party with good faith and negligence.

Articles 16 and 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2016Guhap10690 Such disposition shall be revoked.

】 】

○ Head of tax office

January 12, 2017

February 16, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On June 1, 2015, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax ○○○○ (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on June 1, 2015.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 14, 2012 to January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff operated the instant gas station from ○○○-ro 505.

B. The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from A, an oil sales agent, in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2013. After deducting the input tax pursuant to the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff reported and paid the value-added tax for the first taxable period of 2013 to the Defendant.

C. However, the Defendant denied input tax deduction on the ground that the instant tax invoice is merely a virtual data and constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and imposed on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2015, the value-added tax amount ○○○○ (including additional tax) for the first quarter of the year 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on July 10, 2015, but the said claim was dismissed on February 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1-1, 3, Eul evidence No. 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff actually purchased oil from A while normally paying an amount equivalent to the value of supply of the instant tax invoice from A, and A is an enterprise that actually engaged in oil transaction, not from A. As such, the instant tax invoice does not constitute a tax invoice different from the fact, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff did not know that it is merely a virtual data, and fulfilled its duty of care to verify a business registration certificate, a copy of bank account, etc. in a virtual transaction with A. Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a party with good faith and without fault. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act") and Article 39(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act provide that the input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In this case, the meaning of the difference between the facts is that the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is the object of taxation, is nominal, and if there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, or transaction, which is the object of taxation, belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction actually belongs, is subject to the application of tax law in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that if the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the party to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, it shall be deemed that the taxpayer actually supplied the goods.

As to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire statement and pleadings of Nos. 1 through 5 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) regarding the instant case: (i) around June 2012, virtual use of the place of business and oil reservoir located at ○○○○○○○○○ was observed; (ii) the representative AAB, a corporation that entered into a fuel supply contract with A, stating that there was no supply of oil to A after the signing of the contract, and (ii) BBB, which entered into a contract for the exclusive use of transportation equipment with A, stated that the Plaintiff was not requested to transport the oil at one time after the signing of the contract, and that the Plaintiff’s request was not sufficient to transport the oil from other vehicles waiting within ○○○○○○○○○○○, which was located in the storage room, and that the Plaintiff did not provide for the transport of the oil at one’s own expense after receiving the request for transport from A, and (iii) CCC only stated that the Plaintiff supplied the oil to D’s store under its name.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a trading party with good faith and negligence

Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax shall not

A. The fact that there was no negligence on the part of a person who asserts the deduction or refund of an input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002) should be proven by a person who asserts the deduction or refund of an input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Furthermore, in a case where there were sufficient circumstances to suspect whether the relevant goods or services are the actual supplier in light of the developments leading up to the issuance and issuance of a tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, specific route and process, etc. of the relevant goods or services supplied, the recipient may not be deemed to have been negligent on the part

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the purport of the argument as a whole, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice and shipment slip to the effect that the Plaintiff was supplied with oil from A, the Plaintiff was provided with oil and remitted the amount equivalent to the oil price to A’s account, and the Plaintiff confirmed A’s Ghana’s business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, and copy of the head of the Tong’s deposit account, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the instant tax invoice was false, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and that there was no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and 8, i.e., (i) the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and free data transactions using free oil, etc. are becoming social issues; thus, the ordinary operation of gas stations:

If the Plaintiff was supplied with light oil for about 90% of the total purchase amount of the Plaintiff’s oil from around August 2012, the Plaintiff did not completely gather this head’s real name or personal information, and did not visit the place of business or the oil storage room, etc. despite the circumstances suspected of suspecting the Ghana’s oil distribution process, and (3) the Plaintiff was supplied with light oil at a price below 50 won per liter compared to the oil supply. Since it is common for the Plaintiff to add profit-making oil price to the intermediate wholesaler, etc., and thus, it is probable that the Plaintiff still supplied the Plaintiff with light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not know that there was no oil distribution system, the Plaintiff did not have any doubt that the Plaintiff supplied the oil at a low price than the normal sale of the oil. As such, it appears that the Plaintiff still did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the oil at a low price than the normal sale of the oil to the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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

partnership.