It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice, and that there was no negligence in not knowing it.

The plaintiff was aware that the actual counterpart of the transaction was not the transaction partner of this case, or at least there was a negligence that did not investigate, even though there was a need to investigate the other party's identity as the actual counterpart of the transaction.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2014Guhap2516 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAA, Inc.

port of origin

May 27, 2015

June 24, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The respective notified tax amount for each taxable period in the attached Table to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2013, which the Defendant revoked.

(c)

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person running oil wholesale and retail business from April 1, 2008 to ○○○○-dong ○○○○○-dong 4, 2008.

B. In 2009, the Plaintiff received each tax invoice of KRW 00 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) from UMM Co., Ltd. in the second taxable period of the value-added tax, from T Energy Co., Ltd. in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “T Energy”), from the supply value of KRW 00,000, from the N Energy Co., Ltd. in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “N Energy”), and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant deemed that the instant tax invoice was a tax invoice written differently from the fact, and thus, deducted the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, and revised and notified each of the value-added tax and corporate tax as stated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 20, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on December 30, 2013.

Facts that there is no dispute with recognition, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and Eul No. 1 (including each number, if any), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff was actually supplied oil from Uo, T Energy, N Energy, and F Energy (hereinafter “the instant transaction party”), and accordingly, received the instant tax invoice. Therefore, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not know such fact at the time of the purchase of oil, and was not negligent in not knowing such fact.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9129, Dec. 31, 201) provide that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. It means that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the fact. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, or transaction subject to taxation is only nominal, and where there is another person to whom such matters are in fact belong, the person to whom such matters are in fact belong shall be liable as taxpayer and the person who actually supplies goods or service does not coincide with those of the party to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Nu1678, Dec. 17, 1996).

B) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from the customer of the instant case as a false tax invoice, based on the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to the instant case’s health team, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and 9 through 11.

(1) As a result of the data review on U.S. date, SSS Petroleum Co., Ltd., a purchaser of U.M., is a corporation established on data, transaction on the tax invoice issued by U.M., including the Plaintiff, is highly likely to be a transaction without actual supply of oil. U.M. shows a typical financial transaction form, such as withdrawing funds deposited from a seller in cash and re-transfer them to a representative’s account.

The results of the research on the data on Do Governor T Energy, and the purchaser of T Energy is SSS Petroleum Co., Ltd. as well as the SSS Petroleum Co., Ltd. is a corporation established by data, so the transaction on the tax invoice issued by T Energy to various gas stations including the Plaintiff is likely to be a transaction without actual supply of oil.

【NG tank’s result of the data survey on N Energy, KK companies, Co., Ltd., Ltd., KG companies, andCC companies, etc., were confirmed to be complete in the data as a result of the investigation, and, in the case of the O storage, the NG store itself, the quantity of electricity is extremely low compared to the quantity of oil shipped on the shipment slip, and there is no details of payment of rent, and in the case of GG tank, there is no details of payment of the cost of the contractual work (oil rent). In the case of the GG tank, the transaction on the tax invoice issued by the NG company, including the Plaintiff, is likely to be a transaction without the actual supply of oil. In addition, the N Energy shows a typical form of financial manipulation, such as immediately withdrawing the funds deposited from the KG, or remitting the funds deposited from the KG to the processing purchasing company, and this LL, the representative of N Energy, has already been convicted due to a violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act (Delivery of Tax Invoice, etc.).

In light of the results of the research on data on the F Energy, J Petroleum, the purchaser of F Energy, was confirmed as complete data as a result of the tax investigation, and the GG tank that FF Energy contracted and used as oil storage place is rarely used, the transaction on the tax invoice issued by FF Energy, including the Plaintiff, is highly likely to be a transaction without actual supply of oil. Furthermore, FF Energy shows a typical form of financial manipulation such as immediately transferring the funds deposited from the seller to the JJ Petroleum representative account and withdrawing in cash.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion against this is without merit.

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

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the supplier cannot deduct or refund the relevant input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier, and the person claiming for the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of the above name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s failure to know it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including each number), which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s operation of a gas station from April 1, 2008, i.e., the normal structure and distribution channel of the oil supply, the general form and method of trade in the industry, and the actual situation and risk of transactions in the oil industry through experience in the past see that the Plaintiff could have been sufficiently aware of the actual transaction in the oil industry, and ii) the Plaintiff’s provision of oil was not the original of the oil ticket issued at the time of the supply of the oil from the transaction partner, but it was issued by the transaction partner of the instant case, not the original of the oil ticket issued at the time of the supply of the oil from the transaction partner of the instant case. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was not negligent in the other transaction partner of the instant case, even though it was sufficiently doubtful that the transaction partner of the instant case was not the actual supplier or the other transaction partner of the instant case.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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