Seocho 2012west 2731 ( November 27, 2012)

a false tax invoice prepared by pretending as if there is no actual transaction;

Comprehensively taking account of the facts recognized, CCC energy is merely an intermediary of the material oil market and the actual purchaser rather than buying and distributing the oil to the oil-free oil market. Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice prepared by pretending that there was no real transaction between the Plaintiff and CCC energy.

2013Guhap5913 global income and revocation of disposition

HongAAA

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

April 5, 2013

May 10, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of imposition of KRW 000,000, local income tax accrued in 2006 shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The imposition of the local income tax of KRW 000 on May 1, 2012 against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of the local income tax of KRW 000 on global income tax of KRW 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 1, 1995, the Plaintiff opened and operated a 'BB gas station' from 000 O-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, Yeonsu-gu OB gas station, and closed the business on October 26, 2007.

B. In February 2006 and January 2007, the Plaintiff issued 7 copies of the purchase tax invoice of OOOO members (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant tax invoice”) in the total amount of supply in the name of CCC Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC energy”), and filed a report on global income tax and local income tax including the value of supply in the total amount of business income.

C. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant deemed the instant tax invoice as a false or processed tax invoice without real transactions, and the Plaintiff appropriated the necessary expenses excessively. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a revised disposition on global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 000 won for the year 2007, and tax of 000 won for the local income tax of 2007 for the year 2007 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “revision disposition”).

D. Accordingly, on June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On November 27, 2012, the Tax Tribunal recognized the amount of KRW 000,000 deposited into the CCC energy account among the supply value of KRW 000,000 as necessary expenses, and corrected the tax base and tax amount of global income tax for 2006 and global income tax for 2007, and dismissed the remainder of the appeal (the early trial 2012Do2731).

E. Accordingly, from 000 won on December 4, 2012 to 000, the Defendant revised the global income tax for 2006, including 000 won (including additional tax) and 000 won (including additional tax) as necessary expenses related to global income tax for 2006, while global income tax for 2006 including 200 won (including 00 won) and 000 won. Accordingly, the global income tax for 2007 remains (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Based on Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry in Gap, Eul, 1, 2, 4, and 6, and Eul evidence 1 (including all these documentary evidence of natural disaster; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim for revocation of imposition of local income tax for the year 2006 among the instant lawsuit

A. The former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9302, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Local Tax Act").

According to Article 177-4(1), (2), and (5), and resident tax (limited to local income tax under the current Local Tax Act) to be paid to the head of a Si/Gun (in the case of the Special Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, the head of the Gu, and the same shall apply hereinafter) having jurisdiction over the place of payment of income tax. Where income tax is imposed and notified in accordance with the method of correction, determination, etc. under this Framework Act on National Taxes or the Income Tax Act, and where resident tax to be imposed and notified together is imposed and notified by the head of the relevant Si/Gun, it shall be deemed that the head of the relevant Si/Gun imposed and notified tax. Thus, the defendant seeking revocation of disposition imposing local income tax shall be the head of the relevant Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the place of payment of the income tax (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14

B. We can find the facts that the disposition of imposition of the local income tax of KRW 00 for income tax under Article 172 of the Local Tax Act is the resident tax to be imposed in accordance with Article 172, in full view of the health unit, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-2, and the whole purport of the argument as a whole, and the disposition of imposition of the local income tax of KRW 00 for the year 200 can be recognized.

C. Therefore, the part seeking revocation of the disposition imposing local income tax of KRW 000,000, among the instant lawsuit, is unlawful as it is against a person without standing to be the defendant.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased tax-free oil illegally distributed from CCC energy from October 2006 to June 2007, and then remitted 000 won to the corporate account under the name of CCC energy and paid all remainder in cash. As such, all of the portion paid by the Plaintiff in cash should be included in necessary expenses. Accordingly, the instant disposition on a different premise should be revoked as it is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) From September 18, 2007 to November 16, 2007, the director of the Central District Tax Office issued a false sales tax invoice of KRW 000 equivalent to 99.5% of the value-added tax base, and notified the head of the competent tax office of the Goyang District Public Prosecutors' Office of the fact that the CCC and the representative director thereof, the actual operatorDD and the false tax invoice were suspected of issuing and delivering the tax invoice, as the CCC energy had been supplied by the method of forging the withdrawal table from February 2, 2006 to January 2007.

(2) At the time, the investigation report by the director of the Central Regional Tax Office of Jungbu Regional Tax Office states that CCC energy was leased and used from around September 2004 to the office of Southern Port (100KL) located at the port of Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, and that there was no entry and exit of oil after 2006, and that there was no fact that the oil was loaded and released since 2006, and that the date of the transaction of oil oil distribution table for the oil company and the shipment vehicle number submitted by the transaction party to prove that the actual transaction was conducted by the transaction party, as a result of checking the oil refining company, the customer code, card number, and the transfer ticket number are different, and that there was no fact that the oil shipment of the relevant vehicle was carried out, or that the customer who shipped the oil is confirmed

(3) 천OO은 검찰에서 조사받으면서， 거래주유소로부터 CCC에너지 법인 계좌로 받은 유류대금을 허위 매입세금계산서를 받을 업체인 동북에너지 명의 계좌로 일단 송금하였다가 다시 차명 계좌로 송금한 후， 현금으로 찾아 민여사라고 불리는 유류 무자료 중간상에게 지급하면 유류 무자료 중간상은 OO석유， OO주유소， OOOOO 등 세 업체의 코드 번호를 알려주면서 그것을 이용하여 특정 정유사 출하대(出倚臺)로 가서 무자료 유류를 공급받도록 조치해 주었다고 진술하였다.

(4) From February 2, 2006 to January 2007, the CCC energy operated an abnormal method, such as issuing and delivering a false tax invoice in the name of CCC energy when a personal entrepreneur, who acts as a broker for oil-free materials, supplies oil to his customer, and forging a false purchase tax invoice in the name of CCC, and then forging the shipment invoice after receiving a false purchase tax invoice from the OO-Energy O-Energy Co., Ltd. during the same taxable period.

(5) On September 7, 2009, the director of the Namcheon District Tax Office deemed the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice received without real transaction, and imposed the Plaintiff a corrective imposition of KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the tax base for

(6) On November 11, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that the instant tax invoice was not a false or processed tax invoice prepared without a real transaction, and that there was no negligence by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s failure to know the disguised fact in the name of the instant tax invoice, and that there was no negligence by the Plaintiff, the said tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that: (a) on May 4, 2010, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to be deemed that the Plaintiff was supplied with the actual oil and that the instant tax invoice was received (the first instance court 2009Du3991)

(7) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax. On February 11, 201, the Incheon District Court of the first instance, which was the legal entity, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff filed an appeal on February 11, 201; (b) the Seoul District Court issued a tax invoice, etc. in the name of CCC Energy so that real transactions between the individual entrepreneur and the Plaintiff, etc. holding non-taxable oil, and (c) the CCC energy directly traded real transactions; and (c) the instant tax invoice is deemed to constitute a false or processed tax invoice prepared as if CCC energy supplied oil; and (d) the Plaintiff did not know that CCC energy, the nominal owner of the instant tax invoice, was not actually supplied with oil (2010Guhap2405), but the Seoul High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiff for the same reason (2011Nu10432, and the Plaintiff did not file a final appeal with the first instance judgment.

(8) Meanwhile, the Seoul Administrative Court, the first instance court, upon receipt of the purchase tax invoice under the name of the CCC, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the CCC tax and global income tax on the ground that the CCC tax invoice under the name of the CCC was a false tax invoice without actual trade. The Seoul Administrative Court, the tax invoice under the name of the CCC 2, and the burden of proving that the tax invoice constitutes “tax invoice different from the fact” under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, which is denied, was borne by the tax authority. On the other hand, the Supreme Court, on the premise that the purchase tax invoice under the name of CCC 2 was false, issued a favorable judgment on the part of the Plaintiff, which partially revoked the global income tax and value-added tax invoice under the premise that the tax invoice under the name of the CCC 39322.20, the appellate court, while dismissing the Plaintiff’s tax invoice under the name of the CCC 2, which was the first instance court’s rejection of the tax invoice under the premise that the CCC 2 did not receive any actual tax invoice.

(10) OO actually operated BB oil station was present at the Seoul High Court, which is a witness of the appellate court, in criminal cases such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) against OO, and was received oil from OO oil operated by OO. The price was transferred to cCC energy by transferring it to the account, and the amount was paid in cash, but there was no evidentiary material for the portion paid in cash.

[Based on Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 6, 16, 19, 20, 21, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In full view of the fact that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false or processed tax invoice, and the facts recognized above, CCC energy is merely an intermediary between the material oil market and the actual purchaser rather than a new one after purchasing oil on the oil market with no material oil market. Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice prepared by pretending that there was no real transaction between the Plaintiff and the OO Energy.

(2) As to whether the oil price claimed by the Plaintiff as payment in cash should be included in the necessary expenses

(A) If a tax invoice on a part of the expenses reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely without real transactions by the Defendant, who is the tax authority, without real transactions, and whether it is actual expenses and whether it is not, and if it has been proved to the extent that the other party to the expenses claimed by the taxpayer was false, and the other party to the payment thereof has been actually spent, it is necessary for the taxpayer who is easy to present all the materials, such as the account book keeping and evidence, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997; 2002Du2673, Nov. 27, 2003).

(B) Although there is no room to view that the Plaintiff paid part of the oil in cash as to the instant case, and the facts revealed as above, that is, CCC energy received the payment first to the CCC Energy Corporation account in connection with the oilless oil brokerage and its customer, and used the method to find it in cash and make payment to the CCC oil intermediary, so cash payment was exceptional, and EOOOO actually operating the BB Oil Station only made payment in cash. According to this, the amount of the cash payment out of the oil payment is deemed not to be much more than 000 won, and the cash payment claimed by the Plaintiff is more than 25% of the total amount of the oil payment, and it is difficult to recognize that the oil payment by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was actually paid in cash, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient.

(C) Ultimately, the cash payments asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be included in necessary expenses, and the instant disposition is lawful on the same premise.

4. Conclusion

Among the lawsuit in this case, the part seeking revocation of imposition of local income tax is illegal, and the plaintiff's claim for the remaining part is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are fully borne by the plaintiff who has lost.