Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3886 ( October 24, 2011)

The tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice entered falsely by the supplier, and the plaintiff's good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes tax invoices falsely entered by oil suppliers, and it is necessary to pay more attention when trading through the Internet site is conducted, the company of Youngwon members is 4 times or more between one year and four won, and the issuance of the shipment slips is abnormal, etc., the plaintiff's good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Song AA

Head of the District Tax Office

July 20, 2012

September 7, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 on February 1, 2010 and KRW 000 on the first-year value-added tax in 2008, the second-year value-added tax in 2008, and the first-year value-added tax in 2009, each of which is imposed by the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 18, 2007, the Plaintiff is running gas station business with the trade name of ‘B gas station' from OOdong 00 to ‘B gas station'.

B. The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) from CC Petroleum Daejeon Branch, D Energy Cheongju Branch, D Energy Power Source, and D Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Purchase”). The Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) as the input tax amount by reporting it as the input tax amount.

C. On February 1, 2010, the Defendant issued the Plaintiff a notice of each of the following: (a) the first value-added tax base for the year 2008; (b) KRW 000; and (c) KRW 000 in the second year value-added tax for the year 2008; and (d) the first year value-added tax for the year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Central Regional Tax Office, but the Central Tax Office dismissed the objection on August 26, 2010, and the Central Tax Office filed a request for examination with the Tax Tribunal on November 23, 2010, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the request for examination on May 24, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The entry into the non-strifed facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 10 through 12, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and 14 (including the number, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Non-existence of the grounds for disposition

When the instant purchase headquarters supplies oil to the Plaintiff, it directly transported oil to the Plaintiff from the main headquarters of the instant purchase headquarters without going through the oil storage facilities of the instant purchase headquarters, which is only the instant purchase headquarters that ordered the said major oil to deliver the oil to the Plaintiff, and thus, the “supplier that actually supplied the oil to the Plaintiff.” The instant tax invoice is not a different tax invoice from the fact.

2) Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence

Even if the tax invoice of this case is different from the facts, the plaintiff confirmed and stored each evidence of normal business operator, such as the name of the business operator, the certificate of registration of general agencies for petroleum sales, the business registration certificate, and the copy of the corporate name account, etc., and after receiving the shipment slip and the tax invoice issued by the purchaser of this case, it was sufficient to pay the price normally in the corporate account of the purchaser of this case, and it was not known that the purchaser of this case sent the invoice of this case to the shipment slip of the purchaser of this case. Therefore, it was not known that the purchaser of this case was changing the shipment slip of the oil to the shipment slip of the purchaser of this case. Therefore, the plaintiff did not know or did not know the fact that the purchaser was named in the name of the purchaser of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

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

Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 208, and hereinafter referred to as "value-added Tax Act") provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount if the necessary entries of the tax invoice are entered differently from the fact. It means that the necessary entry of the tax invoice is not different from the fact that the taxpayer actually supplied the goods or services or the price and the other party they are supplied, regardless of the formal entry of the contract entered between the parties with respect to the goods or services, the taxpayer bears no burden of proof regarding the facts of taxation requirement at the time of revocation of tax imposition, and that if it is presumed that the initial entry of the tax invoice was presumed to have been carried out during the 90-year period, and that the other party did not actually purchase the tax invoice at least 90-year period, and that it is unlawful to conclude that the tax invoice was purchased at least 30 percent of the total purchase price of the goods or services, and that it was not found to have been purchased.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault on the part of the purchaser of the instant case

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 he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who was supplied is not negligent in not knowing the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26695, Mar. 29, 2012). In addition, in such cases, a person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that he/she was not negligent in knowing the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the name of the tax invoice, and in such cases, the actual supplier was in light of the process of issuing and delivering the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, and the specific route and process of the supply of the goods or services, and the fact that the beneficiary did not actually confirm the name supplier’s business head, business facilities, etc. and confirmed the supplier’s business registration certificate, etc. cannot be deemed to be negligent in the actual name.

The facts that the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff wired the amount entered in the tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute between the parties, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., the shipment slips issued by the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s oil reservoir of this case are different from the shipment slips issued by the Plaintiff, and (ii) the shipment slips issued by the Plaintiff were included in Chapter II: (3) the sales slips issued by the Plaintiff were amended in the name of the Plaintiff Company, and (iii) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been negligent in trading with GG, which is the Plaintiff’s business owner, through the Internet site, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the fact that it was not the other party to the sales, and the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the fact that it was not the Plaintiff’s actual supplier, but the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the fact that it was not the supplier’s trade, but the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the purchase order of this case.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.