early 2010 Heavy0591 ( October 15, 2011)

Inasmuch as the shipping time, temperature, density, etc. is exempted from the shipment mark of a document prepared on the data, it is not recognized as good faith or negligence.

In addition to the shipment slips of the oil reservoir issuance, the plaintiff is not recognized as a bona fide or without fault since the shipment slips of the oil reservoir issuance are confirmed to be a forged shipment slips of the data with the omission of shipping time, temperature, density, etc.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

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

XX

the director of the tax office of Western

September 29, 2011

November 17, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 2006 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2009, KRW 14,129,110, value-added tax for the first period portion for the year 2007, KRW 110,493,90, and value-added tax for the second period portion for the year 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 27, 2005, the Plaintiff is operating the gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name, i.e., from 000-158, Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu to 200-158.

B. For the first and second taxable periods in 2006, the Plaintiff received purchase tax invoices for the total sum of 583,883,000 supply values in the name of ○○ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Energy”), for the second and second taxable periods in 2006, and for the second taxable periods in 2007, after deducting the purchase tax invoices for the total sum of 754,010,000 supply values in the name of △△ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△ Energy”), and filed a value-added tax return for the Defendant by deducting the purchase tax invoices from the output tax amount for the second taxable period in 2007.

C. The defendant was notified by the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the business place of ○○ Energy, △△ Energy, and △ Energy that the above business entity did not supply the actual oil and issued a false tax invoice, and as a result of an on-site investigation on the plaintiff, the plaintiff was found to have issued the first term portion 108,136,00 won in 206, the second term portion 91,818,000 won in 2006, and the second term portion 91,818,000 won in 2006, and the tax invoice received from △△ Energy as false tax invoice. On April 1, 2009, the plaintiff was imposed value-added tax for the first term portion in 2006, value-added tax for 16,158,760 won in 206, value-added tax for 27,342,750 won in 206, value-added tax for 110,490 won in ,2007.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant previous disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 11, 2010 after filing an objection on July 3, 2009. On February 15, 2011, the Tax Tribunal decided that the Plaintiff’s tax invoice of KRW 108,136,00 for the first term portion of 2006, and KRW 91,818,000 for the second term portion of 2006, which the Plaintiff received from ○○ Energy, shall be deemed to have been issued according to the transaction. Of the instant previous dispositions, the Plaintiff revoked the value-added tax of KRW 16,158,760 for the first term portion of 206, and the value-added tax of KRW 27,342,750 for the second term of 206, with the Plaintiff having actually purchased oil from ○○ Energy, and subsequently corrected the tax base and tax amount thereof.

E. According to the above decision of the Tax Tribunal, the Defendant revoked KRW 16,158,760 for the first term of 2006 among the previous dispositions of this case, and subsequently corrected KRW 27,342,750 for the second term of 2006 by reducing KRW 14,129,110 for the second term of 206 (hereinafter “the previous dispositions of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 19, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff conducted a disguised transaction other than △△ Energy and △△ Energy and Processing Transactions. The Plaintiff directly visited each office to confirm the business registration certificate, the petroleum sales registration certificate, and the oil storage facility. The oil price was transferred to the bank account in the name of the corporation. In particular, in the case of △△ Energy, the oil transporter KimA received the shipment slip, and thus constitutes a bona fide transaction party, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

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 disguised name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the disguised name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

As to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice of this case and did not know the fact that there was no negligence, the Plaintiff received the business registration certificate, the petroleum sales certificate, and the tax invoice of this case from △△△ Energy, and transferred the oil price to the said company after the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from △△△△ Energy, △△△ Energy, △△△, and △△ Energy. However, each of the above acknowledged facts and the testimony of the witnessB and SongCC was insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice of this case and that there was no negligence (the actual transaction that was known as the witness's testimony is not the time of the transaction in the purchase tax invoice of this case, but around September 206, 2006, the time of the transaction in question, and around September 1, 2006, there is no evidence to support that the above testimony was prepared differently.

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that there was negligence, even if the Plaintiff knew or did not know that the Plaintiff was not a person who supplied oil under the tax invoice of this case.

① The Plaintiff’s husband, who was an actual operator of the gas station of this case, operated oil wholesale and retail business from around August 1, 2002. As such, the Plaintiff had been aware of the normal structure and distribution route of oil supply, the general form and method of transactions in the industry, and the actual conditions and risks of transactions in the oil industry.

② As a result of the investigation into data on △△ Energy by the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office, 71 billion won (9.5%) out of the amount of the sales tax invoice issued during the first taxable period of 2006 and 71.3 billion won (9.5%) reported during the second taxable period of 2007 was processed and sold, and 70 billion won (9.5%) out of the amount of the purchase tax invoice received 71.2 billion won (9.5%) was determined as the processed and purchased. In addition, 2007, 2007, 1,864,73,31 won including the tax invoice issued to the Plaintiff without real transactions during the second taxable period of 207, 2007, it appears that △△△ was charged with the issuance of false tax invoice, and it was found that △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, who was actually supplied with false energy.

(3) The oil reservoir shall issue a number of copies of the oil reservoir publication slips stating the date and time of the shipment, the arrival, etc., and keep some of them in custody, and provide them to the engineers transporting the oil with the confirmation of the company at the place of destination. The oil station, etc. which receives the oil shall verify whether the oil is refined, not shipped, and the opposite contractual party, etc. by receiving the shipment slips from the transportation engineers. Therefore, the oil reservoir issuance slips are important documents that are indispensable for the oil transaction.

④ However, the Plaintiff received only a shipment slip (No. 21-13 of the evidence No. 21) directly prepared by △ Energy, rather than a shipment slip of the oil reservoir issuance, with respect to transactions with △ Energy, and the shipment time, oil tank number, temperature, density, etc., which are important matters entered in the usual shipment slip, are omitted.

⑤ The Plaintiff submitted a shipment slip for the issuance of oil reservoir (Evidence 18-1 through 6) only with respect to part of the transaction with △△△ Energy. In light of the evidence Nos. 23-1 and 2 (Reasons for Non-prosecutions), the shipment slip is a forged shipment slip for the △△△ Energy (in the case of No. 18-1 of the evidence No. 18, it is almost identical with the forged document No. 23-2 of the evidence No. 23-2, and in the case of the evidence No. 18-2 through 6 of the evidence No. 18-2, the shipment date corresponds to all other five different shipment marks. This cannot be deemed to be a forged). The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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