Whether it can be seen as a good faith trading party who has fulfilled the duty of due care as a good manager

It is reasonable to view that the oil supplier was aware in advance of the fact that it is not a party to the actual transaction in the shipping slip, etc., and therefore, it cannot be deemed a bona fide transaction party that has fulfilled the duty of care of a good manager merely because it

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The request is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition that corrected the value-added tax for the second period of November 9, 2006 by KRW 29,539,700 shall be revoked against the Plaintiff on November 9, 2006.

1. 원고는 2004. 7. 15.부터 ΟΟΟ도 ΟΟ시 ΟΟ동 ΟΟΟ-Ο번지에서 ΟΟΟ주유소('이 사건 주유소'라고 한다)를 운영하는 자인바, 원고가 2005년도 제2기 과세기간 중 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사로부터 공급가액이 합계 230,060,444원인 매입세금계산서 13장('이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)을 교부받아 그 공급가액을 매입세액으로 공제하여 부가가치세 신고를 하였음에 대하여, 피고는 2006. 11. 9. 원고에 대하여 세무조사 결과 2005년 제2기 과세기간 동안 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사가 실물거래 없이 허위 매출ㆍ매입세금계산서를 발행한 사실이 발견되었고, 이 사건 세금계산서 역시 공급자가 사실과 다른 위장거래 또는 가공거래에 의한 세금계산서라는 이유로 이 사건 세금계산서에 따른 매입세액 공제를 부인하고 공급가액을 필요 경비에 불산입하여 2005년도 제2기분 부가가치세를 29,539,700원으로 경정하는 처분('이 사건 처분'이라고 한다)을 하였다.

2. 이에 대하여 원고는, 원고는 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사의 사업자등록증, 대리점허가증, 국세완납증명원, 법인통장계좌 등을 확인하여 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사가 석유판매업 등록을 한 정상적인 사업자임을 확인한 후, 각 거래시마다 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사가 지정하는 저유소에 원고의 차량을 보내 그 저유소로부터 유류를 공급받으면서 출하전표를 발행받아 그 출하전표를 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사에 보여주고, ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사로부터 이 사건 세금계산서와 출하전표를 교부받은 다음 대금을 송금하는 방식으로 실물거래를 하였고, ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사가 소위 '자료상'으로서 실제로 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 자가 아니어서 이 사건 세금계산서가 위장거래 또는 가공거래에 의한 세금계산서에 해당한다고 하더라도 원고는 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사가 명의를 위장한 사실을 알지 못하였으며, 알지 못한 데에 과실이 없으므로 이 사건 처분은 위법ㆍ부당하다고 주장한다.

3. 먼저 이 사건 세금계산서가 위장거래 또는 가공거래에 의한 것인지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제2호증의 1, 2. 을 제2, 3, 4, 7, 11호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사는 유류거래 없이 가공세금계산서를 발행한 소위 '자료상'이었고, 원고가 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사로부터 유류를 구입하고 수취하였다는 이 사건 세금계산서는 공급자가 사실과 다른 위장거래 또는 가공거래에 의한 세금계산서에 해당하는 사실이 인정된다.

4. 다음으로 원고가 이 사건 세금계산서에 기재된 공급자와 실제 공급자가 다른지 여부에 관하여 선의ㆍ무과실이었는지에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제3호증의 1, 2, 제4호증의 1부터 13, 제5호증의 1부터 13, 제6, 7호증, 제8호증의 1부터 9, 제9호증의 1부터 9, 재10호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 제11호증, 제12호증의 1부터 14, 제13호증의 1, 2의 기재만으로는 원고가 선의ㆍ무과실이었다고 인정할 수 없고, 오히려, 갑 제4호증의 1, 3, 을 제4호증, 제5호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 제6호증의 1, 2, 3, 4, 제8호증의 1, 2, 제9, 10, 11호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 유류 공급자가 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사가 아님을 알았거나 과실로 그 사실을 알지 못한 채 ΟΟΟΟΟ 주식회사 명의로 된 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받았던 사실이 인정된다.

5. If so, the plaintiff's assertion and claim are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Supplementary High Court 2008Nu686 (Law No. 12, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition that corrected the value-added tax for the second period of November 9, 2006 to the plaintiff in 2005 by 29,539,700 won.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 15, 2004, the Plaintiff is a business operator who operates ○○ Dong gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) at ○○ Dong-dong 140-O, Kimhae-si.

B. From August 16, 2005 to November 22, 2005, the Plaintiff received 230,060,444 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) a total of supply value from the Live Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Energy”) and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the supply value from the total of supply value from 230,060,444 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”).

C. On November 9, 2006, the Defendant issued a false sales or purchase tax invoice without real transaction during the second taxable period of 2005 as a result of the tax investigation. The Defendant also issued a disposition to deny the deduction of the input tax amount pursuant to the instant tax invoice on the ground that the supplier is a tax invoice based on disguised or fictitious transaction, and to exempt the supply value from the necessary expenses, thereby correcting the value of the second taxable year value-added tax at KRW 29,569,70 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff confirmed that ○○ Energy is a normal business operator who registered a petroleum retail business by verifying the business registration certificate, agency permission, certificate of national tax full payment, corporate passbook account, etc. of ○○ Energy, and then, issued the Plaintiff’s vehicle at each transaction at the oil reservoir designated by ○○ Energy and displayed the shipment slips on ○○ Energy after receiving the Plaintiff’s supply of light oil from the oil reservoir. The Plaintiff traded real goods by receiving the instant tax invoice and the shipment slips from ○ Energy, and then remitted the price. ○○ Energy is a so-called “data” and is not a person who actually supplies goods or services, even if the instant tax invoice falls under the so-called “tax invoice” due to a disguised transaction or processing transaction, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that ○○ Energy was disguised, and as such, the instant disposition was unlawful and unjust.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

C. Determination

(1) 이 사건 세금계산서가 위장거래 또는 가공거래에 의한 세금꼐산서인지 여부

According to Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 14, and Eul evidence 14, ○○ Energy was opened on February 16, 2005 and closed down business on December 8, 2005. The representative director stated that ○○○ was not involved in the business, and the actual business operator was ambiguous. The ○○ Energy reported 9,468,181 won to purchase 20 days after the opening of the business and the 20052-year supply price of petroleum retail business, but it was reported that ○○○○'s exclusive oil storage business was purchased 253,872,00 won or more, but the 10-year supply price of the 2005-year-old petroleum retail business and the 10-year-old petroleum retail business had no evidence to purchase ○○'s exclusive oil storage facilities including those purchased from the company.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide or 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).

Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case and did not know that there was any negligence, the evidence of No. 7 corresponding thereto cannot be trusted, and it is not sufficient to accept the evidence of each of the evidence of No. 3 through No. 5, A8, A11, and A13 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the overall purport of pleadings, the Plaintiff, who was aware of the fact that ○○○○○○○○○○○○, was not a party to the instant transaction, was not a party to the instant tax invoice on the 7th anniversary of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that 00 million won of the instant tax invoice was not a party to the instant tax invoice; (b) the Plaintiff was not a party to the instant tax invoice 1; and (c) the Plaintiff was not a party to the instant tax invoice 1; and (d) the Plaintiff was not a party to the instant tax invoice 2, which was not a party to the instant tax invoice 7,000,000 won of the instant tax invoice 1; and (d) the Plaintiff was not a party to the instant tax invoice 2,000,000 won of the instant tax invoice 7,000 won of the instant tax invoice 1,000 won of the instant tax invoice 3,000 won of the instant tax invoice 1,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition as the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.