The plaintiff's good faith and negligence that the oil supplier received a tax invoice different from the fact should not be recognized.

In light of the fact that oil is supplied or supplied on credit, the place of business of the customer, the location of the oil storage facility, the transportation vehicle and other business facilities are not verified, and the temperature and weight are omitted in the shipment slip that did not request and confirm the shipment slip or received the shipment slip, etc., the oil supplier's good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Revocations such as imposition and disposition of value-added tax, etc.

Kim XX et al.

The director of the tax office and one other

August 24, 2012

September 28, 2012

1. Of the instant lawsuit,

A. The disposition of imposition of the global income tax of 000 won on May 2, 201 by the head of the Highyang Tax Office against the Plaintiff KimA on May 2, 201, belonging to the year 209;

B. On June 1, 2012, Defendant Lee In-cheon Tax Office’s respective imposition of global income tax of 000 won for the year 2009, local income tax of 000 won for the year 2009, global income tax of 2010, global income tax of 00 won for the year 2010, and local income tax of 000 won for the year 2010, and each revocation is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Director of the Tax Office of immigration control;

A. Plaintiff KimA: (a) value-added tax for the first term of March 8, 2009 on March 8, 201; (b) value-added tax for the second term of March 2009; and (c) value-added tax for the second term of March 2009;

B. With respect to Plaintiff AB:

(1) value-added tax for the second term of March 1, 2009 on March 1, 201:

(2) Each disposition shall be revoked on June 1, 2012, KRW 000 of global income tax for 2009, KRW 000 of local income tax for 2009, global income tax for 2010, KRW 000 of global income tax for 2010, and KRW 000 of local income tax for 2010, and each disposition for imposition.

2. The imposition of global income tax of 000 won reverted to the Plaintiff KimA on May 2, 201 by the head of the Highyang Tax Office against the Plaintiff KimA on May 2, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 29, 2008 to September 25, 2009, Plaintiff KimA is a business operator who operates a mutual gas station of the trade name, ' XX 232-34' in the female-Sinju Eup in the female-gun in Gyeonggi-do from April 29, 2008, and Plaintiff HanB is a business operator who operates a mutual gas station of the trade name, ' XX 392-5' in the female-gun in the female-gun in Gyeonggi-do from October 1, 2008 to the date.

B. The Plaintiff KimA returned the value-added tax for the first and second half years in 2009, and the Plaintiff HanB returned the second half-year value-added tax for the second period in 2009. As to the oil supplied from the O-Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O-Energy”), the Plaintiff KimA declared the value-added tax by deducting the corresponding input tax amount from the output tax amount, based on the total 11 copies of the tax invoices (Plaintiff KimA 9 and 2 copies of the Plaintiff HanB; hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”).

C. The mid-term regional tax office, which conducted a survey on data on O-Energy, judged that the remainder except for the portion equivalent to KRW 000,000 of the supply price for the first period of the Plaintiff KimA in 2009 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) was a processing tax invoice, and notified the Defendant thereof (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”). The Defendant Leecheon Tax Office deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice, and then did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and then notified each Plaintiff KimA and HanB of the correction and notification of the value-added tax, such as the written claim, as stated in the instant tax invoice (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On May 2, 2011, the head of the Defendant Goyang Tax Office corrected and notified Plaintiff KimA of KRW 000 global income tax for the same reasons as the above (c).

E. Plaintiff KimA and HanB were dissatisfied with each of the dispositions of this case and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 15, 201 and April 22, 2011, but were dismissed on June 28, 201 and May 30, 201.

F. On June 1, 2012, when the instant lawsuit was pending, Defendant Leecheon Tax Office imposed and notified the Plaintiff Hancheon Tax Office’s global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009, KRW 000 for the local income tax of KRW 2009, KRW 00 for the global income tax of KRW 00 for the year 2010, and KRW 00 for the local income tax of KRW 200 for the year 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1 through 9, Gap evidence 5-1, 2-1, 11-3, Gap evidence 12-1 through 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 20-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 20-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination on the global income tax portion

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs seek revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax, as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendants. However, unlike the arbitrary transfer principle of administrative appeals that applies to the general administrative litigation, the administrative litigation seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax ought to undergo a prior trial procedure as prescribed by the Framework Act on National Taxes, and any administrative litigation instituted without going through such legitimate prior trial procedure is unlawful. According to the above, the Plaintiffs’ submission of the disposition imposing global income tax is deemed lawful, but there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs had gone through the aforementioned prior trial procedure with respect to the disposition imposing global income tax, and there is no evidence to prove that the disposition imposing value-added tax and the disposition imposing global income tax cannot complete the disposition imposing global income tax, and it does not constitute a case where it is not necessary to go through the prior trial procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2837, May 10, 207). Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Ex officio determination on local income tax

The plaintiff Han-B sought revocation of the imposition disposition of local income tax against the head of the tax office Leecheon-B. However, according to Article 177-4 (1), (2) and (5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9133, Sep. 26, 2008), resident tax to be imposed (applicable to local income tax under the current Local Tax Act) is a local tax to be paid to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment. If the head of the tax office imposed and notifies the amount of income tax along with the amount of income tax imposed by the method of assessment and assessment in accordance with the revision, determination, etc. under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, even if the head of the Si/Gun/Gu imposes and notifies the amount of income tax to be imposed and notified, the defendant of the appeal suit seeking revocation of the imposition disposition should be the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du11459, Feb. 25, 2005).

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs received the instant tax invoice after being supplied with the actual oil from the O-Energy and paid the price in full. Even if the actual supplier of the oil was not an O-Energy, the Plaintiffs verified the business registration certificate, etc. and fulfilled their duty of care as a bona fide trading party. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice is false or not

(A) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. It means that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that if there is a person to whom they actually belong, the person to whom they actually belong shall be liable for tax payment and the tax law shall apply if there is another person to whom they actually belong, the necessary entries of a tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the person to whom the goods or services are actually supplied or supplied, regardless of the formal descriptions of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

(B) Based on the above legal principles, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to this case’s health class No. 1, No. 13-2, No. 13-2, No. 3-1, and No. 3-3, the Plaintiff’s tax invoice received from O-Energy is a false tax invoice, namely, a false tax invoice entered by the supplier. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

① The details of oil shipment by oil refineriess related to oil supplied by the Plaintiffs do not include cases where the business partners or destination of the Plaintiffs came to be gas stations or OO energy. However, the Plaintiffs did not demand the shipping slips issued by oil refineriess to those who transport oil, or did not receive such forwarding slips.

② According to the details of the O-Energy’s report on the tax base of value-added tax, the O-energy purchased oil from YYpetro Co., Ltd. during the value-added tax period in 2009, and supplied some of them to the gas station to the gas station by the Plaintiffs, and issued the instant tax invoice. However, as a result of the on-site investigation by the Central and Medium Business Office, it was found that the sales tax invoice issued in the oil transaction process was a disguised business operator established for the purpose of only issuing a false tax invoice, such as verification of the total tax invoice as a processing transaction.

③ O energy, as an oil agent, has no oil storage tank, oil transport vehicle, and only the minimum office supplies (computers, books, liftss, telephone, etc.) to issue shipment slips and tax invoices at the place of business of the Central Tax Office on August 26, 2009 at the time of the visit and investigation by the Central Tax Office.

④ After receiving oil payments from the same seller as the Plaintiffs, the O-Energy transferred the remainder after deducting approximately two percent of the commission and expenses from the total amount of the oil payments to the deposit account in YP, and the amount of the money transferred thereafter was deposited in cash immediately after the funds were transferred back to the deposit account in YP and the account in △△△ and the State.

(5) As so-called “data” that issues false tax invoices without real transactions, there is no fact that the oil was supplied to other customers. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the OE purchased oil from the YE and actually supplied some of them to the Plaintiffs, such as the entries in the instant tax invoice.

(2) Whether the plaintiffs' good faith and negligence are recognized

(A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are unaware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were unaware of the fact that they were unaware of the fact that they were unaware of the fact that they were not negligent, they should prove the person who

Furthermore, in light of the details of the issuance and issuance of a tax invoice, the price of the goods or services provided, and the specific route and process, etc. of the supply of the relevant goods or services, where there were sufficient circumstances to suspect who is a actual supplier or who is not a disguised supplier, the recipient may not be deemed to have been negligent on the sole basis of the verification of the supplier’s business registration certificate, etc. without actually verifying the place of business, business facilities, etc. of the nominal supplier.

(B) Based on the above legal principles, whether the plaintiffs were unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case and did not know of it, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only the statements of the evidence Nos. 3, 4-1, 2, 7-1 through 3, 14-1, 2, 15-18, 15-18, 15-1, 2, and 14-1, 14-2, and 15-18, and the testimony of the new witnessCC, and the bestD, and there is no evidence to prove

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence No. 7-1 to No. 3, evidence No. 7-2, evidence No. 3-1 to No. 3-3, evidence No. 1 to No. 3-3, evidence No. 1 to evidence No. 1 to evidence No. 3-3, and evidence No. 1 to evidence No. 1 to evidence No. 1 to evidence No. 3-3, and evidence and the overall purport of testimony and arguments by witnesses, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs could have sufficiently known that

① The Plaintiffs seems to have been well aware of the normal structure and distribution channel of the oil supply, the general forms or methods of the oil industry, and the actual state and risk of the material transactions while operating their respective gas stations.

② The Plaintiffs were supplied with oil on credit or at least 20 won per liter on condition that it is better than other oil supply stations than other oil supply stations. The Plaintiffs, who had compared the type of oil trading, the type of shipment slip, etc., were actual suppliers, and there were sufficient circumstances to doubt whether the nominal supplier is not data. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs continued oil trading without confirming the location of the place of business of OO energy, or the business facilities such as oil storage facilities and oil transport vehicles.

③ The shipment slips issued at the time of the shipment of oil in the oil reservoir are important data proving that the oil is refined or transacted through the normal distribution process. The Plaintiffs did not demand or verify the oil supplied from the OEM, and the Plaintiff’s receipt of the OB from the OE did not indicate information, such as the temperature and weight of the oil that can confirm the normal distribution of the oil.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition that revised and notified the value-added tax to the Plaintiffs is lawful without deducting the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice from the output tax amount.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2009 and the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing global income tax for the year 2009 and the part seeking revocation of each global income tax and local income tax for the year 2009 and 2010 are all unlawful. Thus, the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.