A false tax invoice shall be proved by the person who is supplied with no negligence.

Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice may not be allowed to deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice because he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the person who alleged that there was no negligence on the part of the person who received the tax invoice.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2013Guhap411 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

W KimW

○ Head of tax office

November 5, 2013

November 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

In June 1, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition of the value-added tax No. 1, 201 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From January 19, 2009, the Plaintiff is a business operator who operates a gas station under the trade name, i.e., OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O 202-3.

B. The Plaintiff received six copies of the tax invoice (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tax invoice”) from MMEG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “MMENG”) during the first and second taxable periods in 2011, and filed a value-added tax return with the Defendant by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount. (c) The Defendant, on June 1, 2012, deducted the relevant input tax amount on the ground that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, thereby imposing the Plaintiff the value-added taxOO and the second value-added tax OO (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on July 17, 2012 with the Tax Tribunal on September 21, 2012, but was dismissed on December 28, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 8, 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff did not regard the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice, since it actually purchased oil from MFNG and remitted the price to the account in the name of MFNG.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice was tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff was a bona fide trading party with the duty of care, as it directly visited oil storage by receiving an introduction from MFENG business operators, and confirmed the business registration certificate and the petroleum export and import business registration certificate.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) MMENG is an oil sheet with the head office and the head office and the head office and the head office of the OOO-type OO-type 390-5, and the following facts were confirmed as a result of the regional tax office’s audit on MMENG.

① The oil tank 1-1 located in the OO-Gu O-dong 1-1, which was reported by MMENG as the petroleum storage facilities when the registration of petroleum export-import business was filed, did not have any oil entry and departure since MMEG leased the above storage facilities, and there was no fact that MMENG leased the oil storage tank for the oil storage tank located in OO-O-O-type 395-1 at the time of filing an application for registration of business.

② In the first taxable period of 201, MMENG received oil equivalent to the supply price of OOOO won during the first taxable period, and received a purchase tax invoice and reported value-added tax. However, V Energy Co., Ltd. and NNG, the main business partner of MMMEG, made transactions by transferring the oil purchase price from MMEG to another account in cash and withdrawing the oil in cash. The transportation officers listed in the shipment slip stated that they did not transport oil from the above two companies, and the V Energy Co., Ltd. was deemed as materials from EMENG and thus accused. Accordingly, the director of the regional tax office determined the total purchase amount during the first taxable period of 201, as a processed purchase.

③ After immediately transferring the oil price received from the seller to the MFENG business account, the Plaintiff transferred the oil price to the MFENG account, which was transferred to the V Energy Corporation or the NNG account, and deposited the oil price in cash at each bank counter.

2) OO지방국세청장은 위와 같은 사실을 근거로 MMMENG가 실물거래 없이 세금계산서를 허위로 발행한 자료상임을 확인하고 2011년 제1기 매출액 전액을 가공매출로 확정하였으며, MMMENG와 대표이사 배PP, 실사업자 차QQ을 조세범처벌법위반 혐의로 고발하였다.

3) The Plaintiff was supplied with approximately 640,000 liter petroleum from MMENG at a lower price than OOO-OO-OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O.

4) Unlike the general shipment slips issued by MENG, the shipment slips issued by MMENG are official columns, such as temperature and weight, weight, card number, tank number, etc.

5) The Plaintiff and his spouse are engaged in the oil wholesale business for about 12 years.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 through 26, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) First, we examine whether the instant tax invoice is false or not.

A) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and if there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the requisite entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or being supplied, and the price and time of the transaction (see

B) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the following circumstances: (i) MFNG revealed that it was a data that falsely issued tax invoices during the first taxable period in 201, and filed an accusation with the prosecution; (ii) the sales amount during the first taxable period in 2011 became final and conclusive by the entire processing transaction; (iii) MFNG did not have leased an oil storage tank; or (iv) there was no actual storage and transportation of oil by using the oil storage tank even after leasing the oil storage tank; and (iii) the input tax amount reported in the first taxable period in 2011 was determined by the processing purchase. In light of the fact that there is no oil actually purchased by MFNG, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was supplied oil under the instant tax invoice from MFNG to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes the Plaintiff’s actual supplier, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is inconsistent with the facts.

2) We examine whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence.

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 person who received the other tax invoice in the name of the tax invoice, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that the person who received the tax amount was not negligent in not knowing the above fact of deception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the testimony of the witness compliance, ET, and KimU in each of the statements No. 1-1-4, No. 14-1-2, and No. 14-26, the Plaintiff was granted the tax invoice and the shipment slip from MMENG and remitted the oil price to the MMENG account, and the Plaintiff was supplied with oil through a transportation engineer, such as strongS, ET, and KimU, but it is insufficient to find that the fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the tax invoice issued by MMEG was a false tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the aforementioned facts, the following facts revealed that ① the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and free data transactions are frequent using free oil, etc., so it is necessary to pay close attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier. ② The Plaintiff and his spouse Park R are engaged in the oil industry for about 12 years, and thus, it seems that the other party had been sufficiently aware of the normal supply structure and distribution route of the oil, the general trade type and method of the industry, and the actual transaction risk in the oil industry through experience in the past. ③ The shipment slips issued at the time of supplying the oil to the gas station are traded through normal distribution channels. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the other party was not aware of the fact that there was no suspicion that the other party did not actually know of the fact that there was no suspicion of the fact that the other party did not receive the shipment tickets at least 3GN from the fact that the Plaintiff did not actually know of the fact that there was the fact that there was the fact that the other party did not know of the fact that there was the fact that there was the Plaintiff 3GN-MN's.

3. Conclusion

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