early 201J 3176 ( October 27, 2011)

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

In light of the fact that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice entered falsely by oil suppliers, and that the Plaintiff did not request the shipment slips issued by oil refining companies, the Plaintiff’s shipment slips are missing the entry of oil temperature, density, etc., the Plaintiff was supplied at a level lower than the market price, and the Plaintiff engaged in the petroleum distribution business for several years, etc., the Plaintiff’s good faith and without fault should not be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

SAA

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

August 30, 2012

September 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 1, 2011, the defendant revoked each imposition (including each additional tax) of the second value-added tax in 2009, the first value-added tax in 2010, the second value-added tax in 200, and the second value-added tax in 200 in 2010.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 2, 2005, the Plaintiff is running a retail business or wholesale business with the trade name of the Ogas station from around 000, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (OOdong) to Ogas station (hereinafter “Ogas station in this case”).

B. In 2009, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 000 in total from the BB company during the 2nd VAT taxable period (hereinafter “B”) and deducted each of the above values from the input tax amount when filing a tax invoice of KRW 000 in total from the BB company during the 1st taxable period in 2010, three tax invoices of KRW 000 in total from the CCCnet Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCnet”), and three tax invoices of KRW 00 in total from the CCCnet during the 2nd VAT taxable period in 2010.

C. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) deemed that each tax invoice listed in the above paragraph (b) (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) is a tax invoice different from the fact; (b) denied the input tax deduction; and (c) issued the instant disposition that revised and notified the Plaintiff of the value-added tax of KRW 200 in 2009, KRW 000 in 100 in 2010, and KRW 000 in 200 in 2010 in 2010.

D. On August 30, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and caused a request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal on August 30, 201, and was dismissed on October 27, 2011.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-speed facts, Gap evidence 1, 1, 2, and 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 4-5, Eul evidence 5-5, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff actually purchased oil from BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and received the instant tax invoice, and thus, the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

(2) The plaintiff is the chief of the petroleum products brokerage company, the company's transfer to DD (hereinafter referred to as "transfer to DD"), and the plaintiff's kind of oil transaction with each of the purchasing places of this case by the brokerage of DD, and confirmed the petroleum sales registration certificate, the business registration certificate, etc. at the time of the transaction, and paid oil price to the corporate account. The oil transport company received the shipment slip from the oil transport company, and therefore, the tax invoice of this case was not erroneous.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether a false tax invoice is false

Article 14(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 and Act No. 10409 of Dec. 26, 2008) provides that the entries of the tax invoice are different from the facts under the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10409 of Dec. 27, 201). If the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, or transaction subject to taxation is only the nominal ownership, and there is another person to whom them actually belongs, the person to whom the tax invoice belongs shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are different from those in the form of the contract between the parties to the goods or service, and that the person who supplied the above goods or service is not in conformity with the original supplier’s capacity to whom the tax invoice was actually supplied, and that each of the above provisions in the tax invoice was not sufficient to be recognized to have been purchased for 10% or new, but not less than 10 years ago.

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

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice shall not be allowed to 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 was not negligent in not aware of the fact that he/she was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact of the name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 2

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff was supplied with oil from each of the purchase places of this case, confirmed the plaintiff's business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, etc., confirmed the tax invoice of this case issued by each of the purchase places of this case, and the transaction specifications, and the plaintiff was paid oil through the bank account of each of the purchase places of this case immediately after the plaintiff was supplied with oil. However, the above evidence can be acknowledged in addition to the whole purport of the arguments, and the following circumstances are as follows. (i) When supplying oil, the plaintiff did not request or receive this. (ii) The plaintiff did not know that each of the purchase places of this case issued oil to the plaintiff and did not know that the oil was traded through normal distribution channels, and (iii) the plaintiff did not have any other experience in purchasing and selling the oil than the market price of each of the purchase places of this case.

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.