Suwon District Court 201Guhap3228 ( November 17, 2011)

early 2010 Heavy3430 ( December 30, 2010)

The tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact by the supplier, and cannot be recognized as the plaintiff's good faith and negligence.

In light of the fact that the oil purchase details reported by the person entered as the supplier in the tax invoice of this case are revealed to be false, the oil supplier listed in the tax invoice of this case shall be deemed to be a third party, and considering the contents of the shipment slip and the transaction circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's good faith and negligence.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu4597 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Park XX

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 201Guhap3228 Decided November 17, 2011

April 18, 2012

May 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the first period portion of 2009 and the imposition of KRW 000 for the second period value-added tax for the second period of 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2010 (to be less than that of July 6, 2010, which was written in the complaint) shall be revoked, respectively.

The reason for this court's ruling is that " July 6, 2010, which will be the second 13th th 13th th th 2010" is the same as the corresponding part of the court of first instance. It is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In this court, the Plaintiff asserts that each of the tax invoices of this case, stating the supply of oil is based on normal trade, not on the fact, but on the other hand, even if they were false tax invoices, the Plaintiff did not know such circumstances and was not negligent. However, in light of the fact that: (a) the details of oil purchase reported by XX energy are revealed to be false; and (b) XX energy was reported as holding oil storage facilities and oil transport equipment at the time of registering a petroleum retail business, but it appears that the actual supplier of the oil listed in each of the tax invoices of this case is a third party, not XX energy; and (c) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the oil supply of oil was bona fide and without fault, as alleged in the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.