The early 2010 Before 2883

Since oil cannot be viewed as a bona fide trading party that actually received oil, the input tax deduction cannot be made because it constitutes a false tax invoice.

Although an entrepreneur who supplied oil to the Plaintiff is deemed to have actually supplied oil in the quantity specified in the tax invoice, he/she knew or was negligent in not knowing that the supplier was not an actual supplier, even though he/she was aware of the fact that the supplier could be sufficiently suspected that the supplier was engaged in abnormal business.

2011Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, 1308

IsaA

The Director of the National Tax Service

August 31, 2011

September 28, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of revised value-added tax of KRW 181, 359, and 690 in 2009, the second value-added tax of KRW 105, 189, and 570 in 209 for the Plaintiff on June 24, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 2009, the Plaintiff is a business operator who operated a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name, “OOO 00-0 of Asan City,” “BB gas station” (hereinafter “instant gas station”) and closed on April 20, 2010.

B. In 209, the Plaintiff received each tax invoice for the first and second taxable periods of the value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as the “instant taxable periods”) from CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) in 1,226,34,000 from 32 tax invoices for the total supply value of 1,226,30, and from DDD Energy Seoul Branch (hereinafter referred to as “DD Energy”) 591,545,00, and reported and paid each value-added tax for the first and second taxable periods of 209 (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) by deducting the total supply value from the output tax amount of 191,545,00,000 each of the tax invoices for the first and second taxable periods (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”).

C. From February 25, 2010 to March 25, 2010, the Defendant performed a tax investigation with respect to the gas station of this case, and thereafter, on June 24, 2010, deducted the input tax amount on the ground that each of the tax invoices of this case was false tax invoices, and notified the Plaintiff of the amount of KRW 181,359,69, and KRW 209, value-added tax of KRW 105,189,570 in 209 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 6, 2010, but was dismissed on December 23, 2010, and the Plaintiff was served on the 27th day of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff was actually supplied oil fromCC and DDD energy (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant trading company”) and was regularly traded by remitting oil purchase price to the account in its name. As such, each of the instant tax invoices is not a false tax invoice.

2) The Plaintiff directly confirmed whether each of the instant business registration certificates and the instant business registration certificates was issued normally, and confirmed by comparing whether the name of the oil transaction account was the instant business entity with the tax office and the competent authority. The Plaintiff also requested the Korea Petroleum Institute to conduct a quality inspection on the oil supplied. Therefore, even if each of the instant tax invoices was false, the Plaintiff did not know of such fact and did not know of such fact.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1)CC was a corporation established on April 1, 2009 for the purpose of operating data on the basis of YangG as its representative director, and closed on September 30, 2009. As a result of the investigation by the Seoul Regional Tax Office, 99.92% of the total amount of sales report and 98.67% of the total amount of purchase report was confirmed as a processing transaction. The Seoul Regional Tax Office reported on Kimpo-si OO 000-0 as an oil storage for the registration of petroleum retail business, but did not actually use it as an oil storage; if the non-data distributor supplies oil to the gas station, only the name of the tax invoice and shipment slip was issued asCC and issued as a gas station; if the oil supplier deposits the oil price into the corporation account in the name ofCC with the oil station to deposit the oil price into the corporation account in the name ofCC, the fact that the Seoul Regional Tax Office filed a complaint with the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office under the Seoul Regional Tax Office after deducting the fee immediately (5-500,00,000 won).

2) DDR energy was confirmed as a processing transaction by an abnormal (former No. 19.45% of the total amount of sales report and 1007% of the total amount of sales report as a result of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s tax investigation. It was revealed that both storage facilities, transportation vehicles, etc. on the documents attached at the time of registration of stone sales business were false and that all of them were false, and that it was accused by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office for data.

3) Since around February 5, 2009, most of the gas stations of this case stated that the oil station of this case was operated with the purport that it was engaged in business registration under the name of the Plaintiff even after the completion of business registration for the gas station of this case, and that it was not actually involved in the operation of the gas station of this case. However, in light of the physical nature of the statement made by the oil station at the time of the investigation into the gas station of this case, the gas station of this case was operated with the above legal statement. The plaintiff invested about about 15 million won in the gas station of this case and completed business registration in its name on February 5, 2009. The plaintiff was in charge of external business as to the gas station of this case, and the plaintiff was supplied with the oil of this case, and transferred the oil of this case, and received or received the tax invoice of this case.

4) On early 2009, the gas station of this case was introduced with the instant trading company under more favorable conditions than other oil refining companies, and confirmed the business registration certificate and the petroleum selling business registration certificate presented by the leJ, and traded with the instant trading company during the instant taxable period. However, the leJ provided the instant trading company with the oil station in the region where it is in charge of the instant trading company's own jurisdiction, and provided the instant trading company with the oil using the phone call from the overseas oil stations, and provided that the oil station directly received KRW 5-150,000 per 20,000 in return for the introduction of the above act. However, the leJ did not know where the tax invoice was issued on September 8, 2009 that the oil was supplied, and there was no reason to know that the oil supplier was supplied with the oil in question at the time of the instant transaction, and that there was no more than 10% of the actual oil supply of the oil.

5) At the time of the investigation on March 25, 2010, HH issued or confirmed the oil transport ticket to the account in the name of the instant trading company before and after the supply of the oil by telephone to the employee of the instant trading company. However, at the time of the investigation, HH was identified as the type and place of the oil and the time of the shipment. The most of the oil transport goods on the list presented by the oil transport company were entered into the oil pipeline in the 2000s of Hyundai Bank, which was presented by the oil transport company, and the oil transport engineer again sent three copies of the oil at the time of arrival by mail to the instant trading company. At the time of the issuance of the oil, HH received or confirmed the shipment ticket from the oil transport company to the account in the name of the instant trading company. At the time of the investigation on March 25, 2010, the oil transport company received the shipment ticket from each of the instant trading companies and received the shipment by mail, and the oil transport company did not receive the shipment again from the relevant trading company or the instant trading company.

The testimony was made that “the person received”.

6) From February 2009 to June 2009, DaD Energy was requested by DoD Energy and sent to DoDD Energy, which had been transported from Hyundai Many Bank Oil Pipeline to oil station in this case with Hyundai Many Bank Oil Pipeline. On March 17, 2010 at the time of the tax investigation, Dao Bank Oil Pipeline showed to H the shipment slips issued from Hyundai Many Bank Oil Oil Pipeline to verify oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil.

(7) From February 6, 2009 to February 28, 2009, the 12 list issued in the name of DD Energy was all written by the shipper on a daily basis, and the temperature, weight, density, approval, shipper, etc. are not entirely stated, and the 20115 list column was all stated as "4,0115", and the 2000 .5 .5 . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ..... .... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ......... .............. ..............................................................................................

9) The 16th shipment slips issued byCC from July 6, 2009 to September 30, 2009 include the shipment date on a daily basis. The shipment slips, the name of which is gasoline, include the temperature of 18.5, the weight of 730.2, and the name name of which is light oil, the temperature of 18.5 and 821.7 are the same.

10) The Plaintiff or the UH signed a letter on the column for acceptance of the withdrawal slips issued by mail or letter from the instant trader.

11) During the instant taxable period, the Plaintiff’s purchase declaration amount is approximately KRW 2,375,083,00 in total, and among them, approximately KRW 1,817,879,00 in total, and approximately KRW 76% of the total purchase declaration amount.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 9, 10, 13, 14, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), witness H, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

D. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case is false

A) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts refers to cases where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with the actual subjects, values, and timing of the supply or supply of the goods or services.

B) Regarding the instant case, according to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been actually supplied with oil in the quantities specified in each of the instant tax invoices, but even if so, if the customer who supplied oil to the Plaintiff is not a dD energy supplier but a supplier other than a dD energy supplier listed in the tax invoice, each of the instant tax invoices becomes a different tax invoice from the fact. As such, it is examined as to whether the company that supplied oil to the Plaintiff constitutesCC and DD energy in fact.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts as seen earlier, i.e., that most of the purchase details of the instant transaction companies were processed transaction. However, in the absence of such purchased oil, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually supplied oil, and ② the instant transaction company reported that it had oil storage facilities and oil transport equipment in the form of the registration for petroleum selling business but could not be deemed to have actually used the oil, it is reasonable to deem that the oil supplier of the quantity listed in each of the instant tax invoices is a third party, not the instant transaction company. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that each of the instant tax invoices received by the Plaintiff constitutes a false tax invoice by the supplier. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide and without fault or not

A) Furthermore, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the difference between the supplier and the actual supplier as stated in each of the instant tax invoices, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the supplier and the actual supplier, the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the name of the tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact of the above fact of the nominal name, the person who was responsible for the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009); and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

나) 오히려 앞서 인정한 사실에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 원고는 주유소 운영 경력이 수년에 이르는 유II 또는 유HH에게 유류 공급에 관한 업무를 수행하도록 하였으므로, 그들이 그동안의 경험을 통해 알게 된 유류 공급의 정상적인 구조와 유통 경로, 업계의 일반적 거래 형태나 방식 및 유류 업계에 널리 퍼진 자료상 거래의 실태와 위험성에 관하여 충분히 알 수 있었을 것으로 보이고, 게다가 원고는 유류 딜러를 통하여 이 사건 거래업체와 거래를 시작하였으므로 유류의 실제 공급자에 대하여 특히 주의를 기울일 필요가 있었던 점，② 원고는 출하전표가 별다른 의미를 갖지 않는다고 주장하고 있으나, 원고 또는 유HH이 출하전표를 아예 교부받지 않은 것이 아니라 사후에 우편 또는 인편으로 출하전표를 수령하여 서명하기까지 한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같은바, 원고로서는 이러한 비정상적인 출하전표의 교부 행태 에 비추어 볼 때 그 거래 또한 정상적이지 않다는 의심을 충분히 할 수 있었을 것으로 보이는 점，③ 유류의 경우 온도와 밀도에 따라 그 부피가 달라져 정상적으로 발행된 출하전표에는 발행시간이 초 단위까지 기재되어 있고 온도와 밀도가 정확하게 기재되 어 있으나, 원고가 DDDDD에너지로부터 교부받은 출하전표에는 발행시간이 일 단 위로 기재되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 온도, 비중, 밀도가 모두 공란으로 되어 있었고, 전표 발행 날짜가 모두 다름에도 전표번호가 모두 동일한 숫자로 기재되어 있었으며, 현대 에너비스가 발행한 출하전표 또한 그 발행 날짜가 모두 다름에도 온도와 비중이 모두 동일하게 기재되어 있는 등 이 사건 거래업체 발행 출하전표는 일반적인 출하전표에 비하여 그 기재 내용이 매우 부실했던 것으로 보이는 점，④ 게다가 DDDDD에너지 에게 출하전표상 출하지가 이 사건 주유소의 주소로 잘못 기재되어 있다는 이유로 교 체를 요구하기까지 한 원고로서는 출하전표 발행이 비정상적으로 이루어지고 있다는점, 나아가 이 사건 거래업체가 비정상적인 업체일 수도 있다는 점을 충분히 의심할 수 있었을 것으로 보이는 점(원고가 DDDDD에너지로부터 다시 교부받은 판매 및 인수확인서에 기재된 유류운반기사명과 기존에 교부받았던 출하전표에 기재된 유류운 반기사명이 일부 달랐던 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 이러한 점에 비추어 보더라도 원고로서는 이 사건 거래업체가 비정상적으로 영업을 하고 있다는 점을 충분히 의심할 수 있었을 것으로 보인다), ® 저유소 발행 출하전표는 출하일시, 거래처명, 출하지, 도 착지, 수송장비, 품목 및 출하량, 온도 등을 기재하여 1장은 저유소가, 1장은 유류운반 기사가, 1장은 도착지 수령자가 각 보관하는 것으로서, 출하전표에 기재된 출하지로부터 도착지까지 예상 운송 소요시간과 실제 운송 소요시간을 비교하는 방법으로 유류의 정품 여부를 확인하는 등 정상적인 유통 경로를 거쳐서 유류가 거래된 것이라는 점을 확인하기 위한 중요한 자료인데, 유류를 공급받을 때마다 유류운반기사인 유KK으로 부터 저유소 발행 출하전표를 교부받거나 제시받지 못한 원고로서는 이 사건 거래업체 가 실제 공급자가 아닐지도 모른다고 의심할만한 충분한 사정이 있었던 것으로 보이는 점(원고와 유HH은 유류 배송에 관한 전화를 받았으므로 별도로 출하전표로 확인할 필요가 없었다고 주장하나, 저유소에 직접 주문하여 유류를 공급받는 경우에는 유류운반기사로부터 반드시 교부받게 되는 출하전표를 이 사건 거래업체에게 유류를 주문하 는 경우에는 유류운반기사로부터 제시받지도 못한 채 유류 배송 전・후에 우편으로 교 부받았음에도 그 유류가 정상적인 유통경로에 의하여 배송되는 것인지 아무런 의심을 하지 않았다는 원고 및 유HH의 주장은 수긍하기 어렵다), ⑥ 원고가 이 사건 과세기 간동안 이 사건 거래업체로부터 교부받은 이 사건 각 세금계산서상 매입신고금액 합계 가 원고의 전체 매입신고금액의 약 76%에 이르는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 원고는 이사건 각 세금계산서에 공급자로 기재되어 있는 이 사건 거래업체가 실제 공급자가 아 니라는 사실을 알았거나, 알지 못한데 과실이 있었다고 봄이 상당하다. 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

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