early 2010 Heavy3430 ( December 30, 2010)

Since the fact that abnormal shipment slips have not been issued is not confirmed, it shall not be recognized as good faith or negligence.

It is impossible to recognize it as good faith or negligence in light of the fact that it is difficult to easily verify whether it was brought to oil reservoir located in the oil reservoir on the shipment slip by a transport engineer without stating the shipment time, temperature, density, etc.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Guhap3228 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Park XX

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

October 27, 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 imposition of value-added tax of KRW 8,016,130 for the first period of July 6, 2010 against the Plaintiff in 209 and the imposition of KRW 3,698,390 for the second period of value-added tax in 2009, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 30, 2007, the Plaintiff is a business operator who has engaged in retail business of petroleum with the trade name, such as from 0-8 to 0-8 in Seo-si, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul.

B. The Plaintiff received three tax invoices of KRW 69,545,455 (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”) in total amount of supply value as of June 29, 2009 and 69,545,455 (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices of this case”), respectively, from the output tax amount for each of the value-added taxes of the first and second stages in 2009, the Plaintiff filed a return and payment of each value-added tax for the first and second years for the first years of 2009, the first and second years of 2009, by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. From August 26, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with respect to ○○○ Energy, and confirmed it as data, and notified the Defendant thereof. On July 6, 2010, the Defendant non-deductible the input tax amount on the ground that each of the tax invoices of the instant case was a tax invoice different from the fact, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 3,698,390, value-added tax for the first period of July 1, 2009 for the Plaintiff on the ground that it was a tax invoice different from the fact (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the appeal was dismissed on December 29, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the 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 with oil from ○○○○ Energy, and was normally traded by remitting the purchase price to the account under its name, and thus, each of the instant tax invoices is not a false tax invoice.

2) The Plaintiff confirmed the Plaintiff’s business registration certificate and the registration certificate for petroleum sales business from Na, an employee of the value-added energy, and confirmed that the name of the account for oil sales was the ○○○○○ Energy, and transferred the oil price directly to the account and received the tax invoice three times in advance. Therefore, even if each of the instant tax invoices was false, the Plaintiff did not know such fact and did not know such fact.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

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

The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is the case where the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in the actual supply of goods or services, or the price, time, etc., regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been actually supplied with oil in the quantities listed in each of the instant tax invoices, in full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings. However, even so, each of the instant tax invoices is different from the fact, since the supplier becomes a different supplier, inasmuch as the business entity that supplied oil to the Plaintiff is actually supplied with oil in the quantity listed in the instant tax invoices, if the business entity that supplied the oil to the Plaintiff is not the ○○ as the supplier listed in the tax invoice.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Eul evidence No. 2, since ○○○ Live Energy was opened on December 8, 2008 for the purpose of business operation on the data, and was voluntarily closed on September 30, 2009, it was confirmed that 9.45% of the total sales amount and 100% of the total sales amount were processed transaction as a result of the investigation by the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and that both the storage facilities and transport vehicles stated on the documents attached at the time of the registration of the petroleum selling business were false, it can be acknowledged that it was accused by the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office of the facts. As can be found by the above facts, insofar as the oil purchase reported by ○○○ Live Energy was revealed to have been entirely false, it cannot be deemed that the supplier actually purchased and possessed oil to the plaintiff, and the supplier’s tax invoice cannot be deemed to have been actually owned or used, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not actually use the oil storage facilities and equipment on each of the instant tax invoices is unreasonable.

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

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

As to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of each of the tax invoices of this case and was negligent due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know, each of the entries in Gap’s 2 through 4, 6, 11, and 12 (each number distribution) is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, under the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, and Gap evidence Nos. 10 may be recognized by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the oil reservoir shall issue four copies of the oil prior to the shipment, stating the date and time of the shipment, the name of the customer, the place of arrival, items, the volume of the shipment, temperature, density, etc., and keep two copies of the remaining two copies, and shall be given to the oil carrier for verification at the place of destination. The oil station in receipt of the oil may verify whether the transport engineer was the oil refineries by comparing the scheduled time of shipment from the place of shipment to the place of destination, and the actual time of shipment from the place of shipment to the place of destination, and thus, the plaintiff did not have any significant evidence that the plaintiff did not visit the oil prior to the shipment to the place of shipment, but did not have any doubt that there was any other material quantity than the normal number of the oil prior to the shipment from 00 to the place of shipment, and the plaintiff did not know that there was a different weight in the above cargo station.

3) Sub-determination

As seen above, each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence are not recognized. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

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.