Incheon District Court 2012Guhap427 (2012.09.13)

early 201-Gu3772 ( December 23, 2011)

The instant tax invoice is a tax invoice entered falsely by the oil supplier, and is not recognized as the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence.

(As in the judgment of the first instance court, the tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice falsely entered by the oil supplier, and the plaintiff did not request the shipment slips issued by the oil refinery, the shipment slips received by the plaintiff are omitted, the oil temperature, density, etc. are supplied below 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.

2012Nu3034. Disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

SAA

The director of the North Incheon National Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap427 decided September 13, 2012

March 6, 2013

March 27, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition (including each additional tax) imposed by the Defendant on August 1, 201 on the Plaintiff on the second half-year value-added tax in 2009, the first half-year value-added tax in 2010, and the second half-year value-added tax in 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited in the court of first instance; (b) the Plaintiff asserts that this Court did not know the fact that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice; and (c) the Plaintiff was not at fault in failing to know that it was a false tax invoice. However, the Plaintiff did not enter into a trade with EE, and (d) the Plaintiff purchased and remitted oil equivalent to approximately 41% of the total purchase quantity of the second taxable period of 2009 (=00 ±00 x 100), and (b) the Plaintiff’s shipment slip related to the instant tax invoice is ordinarily different in the form of the oil shipment and its temperature and density, and there is no need to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the Plaintiff’s oil supply vessel was the only supplier of the Plaintiff’s oil before and after the purchase of the Plaintiff’s oil in the first taxable period, and there is no need to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s purchase of the Plaintiff’s oil supply vessel was no more than 2500.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.