early 2011 Middle 1779 ( December 15, 2011)

If a tax invoice is received from a person not related to a transaction, it shall be subject to the imposition of additional tax for lack of evidence.

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a false tax invoice different from the facts entered by the supplier, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff was aware of or was negligent in not investigating the tax invoice, and where the plaintiff received the tax invoice from a person not related to the transaction, it is subject to imposition of additional

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 160-2 of the Income Tax Act

2012 Consolidated 1032 Value Added Tax, etc. is revoked

XX

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

September 25, 2012

November 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of 00 won of value-added tax for the first period of February 1, 201 against the Plaintiff on 2009, 000 won of value-added tax for the second period of February 2009, 000 won of value-added tax for the first period of January 201, and 000 won of value-added tax for the first period of May 20, 201 against the Plaintiff on 209, respectively, and the imposition of 000 won of global income tax for the first period of May 20, 20

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 10, 1997, the Plaintiff operated a gas station with the trade name referred to in XX 146-1 to Namyang-si from Nam-si, XX 146-1, and seven copies of the tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case") in total of the supply value from the OO (hereinafter referred to as "OO") during the taxable period of value added tax for the first and second years in 2009, and filed a value added tax return including the input tax amount.

(b) The Defendant: (a) revised and notified the Plaintiff on February 1, 201, by applying the provision on additional tax not imposed on evidence of 201, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second term in 2009, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first term in 2010, and KRW 000 of the global income tax for the first term in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the first disposition in each of the above dispositions”), and KRW 200 of the global income tax for the year 209 (hereinafter referred to as “the second disposition in this case”) on May 20, 201, on the ground that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false input input tax invoice for the transaction with O.

2. Whether the first and second dispositions of this case are legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff: (a) visited the gas station directly operated by theO to verify whether theO was a normal business operator reliable by theO; (b) confirmed the O’s representative director, regular director, director’s name, details of transactions with other gas stations, business registration certificate, and petroleum sales registration certificate; (c) confirmed that the oil ordered by theO was timely delivered without quality problems; and (d) performed the duty of due care, such as remitting the oil price to the corporation account of theO; (c) thus, the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party. Accordingly, the instant first disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

2) According to Article 81(4) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897, Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Income Tax Act") Article 81(4) of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the legal provision of this case"), an additional tax on lack of evidence applies only to the case where the documents are not received for the actual transaction. However, the plaintiff received documents concerning the transaction of this case, but only the above documentary evidence supplier entered them differently from the facts. Nevertheless, even if the legal provision of this case received documents different from the facts, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that it is identical to Article 81(4) of the amended Income Tax Act to impose additional tax.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice is false

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact is that the necessary entries of the tax invoice refer to cases where the contents of the requisite entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier or supplier of the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries such as the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996).

As to whether the transaction partner who supplied oil to the Plaintiff is an OO which is a supplier listed in the instant tax invoice, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 10 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the arguments, the OO confirmed as a so-called "data column that only issues a processed tax invoice without actual oil transaction," ② O does not hold oil storage facilities and oil transport vehicles, ③ When the data distributors supply oil to the gas station, only the name such as the tax invoice and the shipment slip are issued to the gas station, and the remaining amount after deducting the amount in the name of the fee for the issuance of the tax invoice is transferred to or withdrawn in cash from the OO account. According to the above recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff only issued the processed tax invoice without actual oil transaction to the Plaintiff, and that the actual purchase place of the Plaintiff's oil under the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice by a third party, not a false supplier.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not aware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the above fact of the name, the person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove the fact that the supplier was not negligent (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Furthermore, in light of the details of the issuance and delivery of the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, the specific route and process of the supply of the goods or services, etc., the actual supplier is the person, and the name of the tax invoice, if there was a sufficient circumstance that the beneficiary was doubtful of the fact that the beneficiary was not aware of the fact of the supplier’s business registration certificate, the business permit, the sales statement of the goods or services, etc.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal name of the instant tax invoice, and was negligent, the Plaintiff confirmed the OO’s business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, etc., and received tax invoices, shipment slips, transaction specifications, etc. from OO, and the Plaintiff was aware that the Plaintiff was supplied with oil and remitted the oil price to an OO’s corporate account, but it is insufficient to recognize that the facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased oil from OO and did not know that the tax invoice issued by O was a tax invoice different from the fact, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no difference between the Plaintiff’s entry of Nos. 5, 8 and 9 (including the serial number) and the above evidence, namely, ① since October 10, 197, the Plaintiff operated a gas station for more than 10 years prior to the opening of the oil station and trading with the O. As such, the Plaintiff is presumed to have been sufficiently aware of the normal structure and distribution route of the oil supply, the general trade type or method of the industry, and the actual situation of transactions in the oil industry, and the danger of the sale of the oil. ② The oil reservoir was not the date of shipment, “the date of shipment,” and “the date of arrival,” and “the date of arrival,” and “the date of delivery,” but the Plaintiff did not always provide two copies to the article to whom the remainder is transported, and thus, the Plaintiff did not receive the cost of transportation from the place of delivery to the date and time limit of delivery.

3) The legal provision of this case applies even where the legal provision of this case receives a tax invoice different from the fact, and where an entrepreneur is supplied goods or services from another entrepreneur (including a corporation) in connection with his business and fails to receive the evidential documents falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 160-2 (2) of the former Income Tax Act, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount of such tax not received (hereinafter referred to as "additional tax on lack of evidence") shall be added to the final tax amount: Provided, That this provision shall not apply where the proviso of Article 160-2 (2) of the former Income Tax Act applies. The main sentence of Article 160-2 (2) of the former Income Tax Act provides that where a person who has business income is supplied goods or services from a businessman (including a corporation) in relation to his business and pays the price for such goods or services, it shall receive the evidentiary documents falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides for the tax invoice under subparagraph 2 of Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act).

In light of the language, content, legislative intent, etc. of the above provisions, an entrepreneur who is supplied with goods or services in relation to the business must receive documentary evidence provided for in each subparagraph of Article 160-2(2) of the former Income Tax Act from the “person who actually conducted a transaction of supplying goods or services,” and thus, in a case where the above documentary evidence is not received from the “person who actually conducted a transaction of supplying goods or services,” it is subject to additional tax pursuant to the legal provisions of this case, and it is not different even if the said entrepreneur received documentary evidence from the “person who actually conducted a transaction of supplying goods or services,” not from the “person who actually conducted a transaction of supplying goods or services,” (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du24654, Apr. 26, 20

With respect to the instant case, even though the Plaintiff actually purchased oil from a third party for the instant transaction, the tax invoice was received from O as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff merely received the instant tax invoice from the “person who actually engaged in the transaction of supplying goods,” not from the “person who actually engaged in the transaction of supplying goods,” but from the “O that is not related to the transaction,” and thus, the instant transaction constitutes a disguised transaction subject to the imposition of additional tax for lack of evidence under the legal provisions of the instant case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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