The tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice which is entered falsely by the supplier.

The tax invoice of this case issued by the Plaintiff is a false tax invoice which is different from the fact that the supplier has entered false matters, and the good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2013Guhap15720 Such revocation shall be revoked.

Park AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

September 18, 2014

October 23, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first period of November 7, 2012 against the Plaintiff on November 7, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 25, 2006, the Plaintiff operated the gas station from OO-O to "O gas station in this case" (hereinafter "the gas station in this case"). The Plaintiff received eight tax invoices (hereinafter "the tax invoice in this case", each of the above tax invoices, including "CC Energy, DD Energy," "DD Energy," "EE Energy," and "EE Energy," each of the above tax invoices, on eight occasions during the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2009.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the director of the regional tax office from August 26, 2009 to December 23, 2009, the director of the regional tax office notified the Defendant of the fact that each of the instant tax invoices issued byCC energy, DD energy, and EE was false or processed without any actual transaction. The director of the regional tax office from June 1, 2009 to September 9, 2009, and the director of the regional tax office conducted each tax investigation on EE energy from August 26, 2009 to December 31, 2009.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with respect to the instant gas station from June 14, 2012 to July 22, 2012, and subsequently, on the ground that each of the instant tax invoices was received without actual transaction, on the grounds that it was a false or processed tax invoice received without actual transaction, the Defendant corrected each of the instant tax invoices with respect to the value-added tax for the first period 1, 2009, without deducting the input tax amount related to the instant tax invoice, and notified the Plaintiff to additionally pay the KRW OO of the value-added tax for the first year 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On December 6, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (if any, including a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, from April 17, 2009 to May 20, 2009, received the instant tax invoice 8, and thus, it did not constitute a false or processed tax invoice received without an actual transaction, and received the instant tax invoice 1 to 4 tax invoices. From March 9, 2009 to March 23, 2009, the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the instant 5 to 7 tax invoices. The instant tax invoice was received from EE on January 13, 2009, and was issued the instant tax invoice 8. Thus, each of the instant tax invoices did not constitute a false or processed tax invoice received without an actual transaction, but was not aware that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not guilty.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The results of the tax investigation and criminal punishment related toCC energy are as follows.

A) On December 12, 2008, the FF acquired O-Energy from Kim GG to O-O on December 12, 2008, the company's trade name was changed to the current trade name, and the place of business was also transferred to O-O-O at O-O.

B) The head office of theCC energy is the OO-dong O-O, but there is no employee working therein, this F is serving as a mixed person in the O-O-O at OO-O, and there is no oil storage tank or transport vehicle in the name of theCC energy.

C) The purchasing entity ofCC energy is the OO industry corporation, the O Energy corporation, the OEOE corporation, the OEOE corporation, the OEO Energy corporation, the OEOE corporation, the OEOE corporation, and the OE corporation. All of them are companies where the tax authorities have determined as data or investigated whether data has been submitted.

D) On February 11, 2011, FF was sentenced to the sentence of 1 year and 6 months and OOO of a fine, and the Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal of FF on April 15, 201, on the ground of the criminal fact that “the instant tax invoice was issued by the purchaser, which is a false tax invoice, was issued by the purchaser, and issued the false tax invoice in Chapter 1, 2, 3, and 4, which is a false tax invoice to the instant gas station.”

2) The results of the DNA energy-related tax investigation and criminal punishment are as follows.

A) On October 8, 2008, DD Energy was established at the head office and place of business of OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. A temporary employee was only engaged in the business of receiving phone calls at the said head office, but the employee stated that he did not know about DD energy’s business.

B) On October 30, 2008, the DD Energy reported that it leased and used the oil storage tank of GGNex Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the shipment slip also stated that it was “GGNex Co., Ltd.,” but it was confirmed that DGNex did not use the storage tank.

C) The purchasing entity of DD Energy is the OO Energy Co., Ltd. and the OO Energy Co., Ltd., and both the tax authorities have filed a criminal complaint with the data.

D) On February 10, 2010, Kim H, a representative of DD energy, was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with labor for the crime, such as that on April 27, 2009, Kim H, a 16 companies, including gas stations, supplied oil to the instant Seoul Northern District Court, and submitted the list to the tax office as if the OH had not been supplied with the oil. The above court appealed to the Seoul Northern Northern District Court, but dismissed the appeal by Kim H on April 29, 2010.

3) The results of the E-Energy-related investigation are as follows:

A) EE Energy was established on December 12, 2007 as the trade name "OOO-dong 00-00 of OOOO-dong 00, and the trade name was changed on September 16, 2008, and the representative director was changed from "OO" to "OO". As of August 26, 2009, the size of the head office was only 4 square meters, and there is no document related to the business. The lessor leased it to EE Energy from December 31, 2008, and the lessor stated that he did not work for the employees in addition to the receipt of mail for one to two months at the above head office.

B) On November 14, 2008, EE Energy was established in OO-dong O-O on O-dong O-O on 14, 2008, and on 8 December 2008, O-O building O-O building O-O building O-O building store (representative LL). As of August 26, 2009, the business site is closed and there is no house or equipment, and the area of the Seoul Gyeonggi-do sports site is used as the logistics warehouse of another company, and the Seoul Gyeonggi-do is not registered as the petroleum sales business.

C) On December 17, 2007, EE Energy reported that it used the storage tank (O-108, capacity: 750) located in OO-1 O-dong O-dong O-1 (O-108, capacity: 750) as oil storage facilities. On July 20, 2009, the lessor of the storage tank reported the change to the storage tank (O-10, capacity: 1,500, capacity). The lessor of the storage tank stated that E-Energy received basic rent from E-Energy, but it was not true that E-Energy used the storage tank.

D) Although EE Energy reported that three motor vehicles (O86 OO,O86 OO,O86 OO, or O86 OO) are leased and used, it does not have any fact that the said vehicles were leased or used.

EE Energy entered into a contract on December 2007 as an agency for the sale of petroleum of OODas Co., Ltd., but it does not actually receive petroleum from OODas Co., Ltd.

F) EE Energy Seoul Branch entered shipment units on the shipment prior to OO, OO-O-O-O 347-1 EE Energy LO-O-O O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-the-

G) The purchasing entity at the EE Energy Gyeonggi Branch is the OE Energy Co., Ltd., the OE Energy Corporation, the OE Energy Corporation, the DD Energy Corporation, the OE Energy Headquarters, the EE Energy Corporation, and the OE Energy Corporation. All of the tax authorities are all the companies that have been accused or will be accused against the prosecution on data.

H) On January 13, 2009, BT, which sold petroleum to the Plaintiff, prepared a letter of performance to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall supply transit shipped from the OO oil reservoir.” However, the sales and acceptance certificate (see Evidence No. 9-10) is written as “E Energy LO-1” and “O-1 of O-O-O-O-1”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 6, 13, 14, and 17 (where there are provisional numbers, including them), the whole or part of the pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

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

(A) On the other hand, in a case where: (a) the tax invoice submitted by a taxpayer for value-added tax as a basis for input tax deduction was falsely prepared without a real transaction; or (b) it was proved by a taxation office that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact; (c) it is disputed whether it is a real purchase or the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice; and (d) in a case where it is proved that the transaction with a supplier listed in the tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is considerably false, it is necessary for a taxpayer to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that the transaction with the supplier listed in the tax invoice was actually conducted (see, e.g.

In addition, "the person who supplies or is supplied with goods or services, such as the delivery or transfer of goods or the provision of services, etc. due to contractual causes, or who is obligated to deliver a tax invoice to the person who is supplied with the goods or services, and further, the person who is obligated to pay the value-added tax shall be deemed to be the person who actually received the goods or services or who actually traded the goods or services from the supplier, not from the supplier or the person who forms a nominal legal relationship with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010)", and (b) this case shall be deemed to be related to this case.

1) First of all, the tax invoices of this case 1, 2, 3, and 4 related to theCC energy are as follows: (i) the date of issuance of the tax invoices of this case 1, 2, 3, and 4 is from April 17, 2009 to May 20, 2009; (ii) the date of issuance of the tax invoices of this case 1, 2, 3, and 4 is from August 26, 2009 to December 23, 2009; (iii) there is no evidence to view that the Plaintiff had already been supplied with the business facilities, business personnel, and oil storage facilities; and (iii) there is no doubt as to the existence of such transfer; and (iii) it is reasonable to view that the representative of theCC energy purchases oil from the purchaser; and (iv) the tax invoices were issued with the false tax invoices of this case 1, 234, and 3.

2) Next, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as follows, the health care room for the instant tax invoice No. 5,6, and 7 related to D Energy, and the facts acknowledged as being above, and the overall purport of the arguments, i.e., the issue date of the instant tax invoice No. 5,6, and 7 from March 9, 2009 to March 23, 2009. From June 1, 2009 to September 9, 2009, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had already supplied the instant tax invoice to the effect that there was no business facilities, business personnel, and oil storage facilities, and there was no evidence to view that there was prior to the supply of D Energy by the supplier to the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff purchased the oil from the purchaser of D Energy, i.e., the instant tax invoice No. 5,6, and the total purport of the arguments as above. 3, the representative of D Energy also prepared the tax office’s false petroleum gas tax invoice No. 265, etc.

3) Finally, as to the tax invoice of this case relating to EE Energy 8

In full view of the following circumstances, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, ① the issue date of the tax invoice of this case 8 is around January 13, 2009, and there has been no business facilities, business personnel, and oil storage facilities at the OO regional tax office from August 26, 2009 to December 31, 2009 when conducting a tax investigation on EE energy at the OO regional tax office, and ② EE Energy is doubtful as materials, and it is not clear that EE energy purchased oil from the purchasing office. ③ The unit price of the tax invoice of this case (refer to subparagraph 6-8 of the evidence No. 6-8 of this case) is “unit price” of the tax invoice of this case, and it is difficult to view that EE energy supplied oil to the Plaintiff, and it is reasonable to deem the tax invoice of this case as false tax invoice of this case.

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

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

However, barring any special circumstance, 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 supplier, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that there is no negligence on the part of the supplier, unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

As to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the health team, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 3, and 7-1 through 8-8, and evidence Nos. 8-1 through 9, the Plaintiff received each of the instant tax invoices, and it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff remitted the amount stated in each of the instant tax invoices to the account in the name ofCC energy, DD energy, and E-Energy respectively, but it is difficult to view that the said facts alone were insufficient to know thatCC energy, DD energy, and E-E energy were not the actual supplier of oil, and that there was no negligence.

Rather, given that ① the supply structure of the oil industry is complicated and frequent transactions using duty-free oil are becoming social issues, it is necessary to pay close attention to whether an oil supplier is an actual supplier. ② Since 2006, the Plaintiff operated a gas station for about 8 years. As such, the Plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the normal supply structure of oil, distribution channels, general forms or methods of the industry, and distribution industry’s transactions in the distribution industry, and the risk of transactions. ③ The Plaintiff stated the FF Energy Storage Table (see Evidence 9-1 through 6 of Evidence 9) as “F Energy Storage Book”; ③ even if the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had not been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the Plaintiff’s.

Therefore, 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.