early 2010 Before 0195 ( October 25, 2010)

A gas station business operator who has received a false tax invoice;

Since the tax invoice delivered to an entrepreneur operating a gas station constitutes a false tax invoice, it is insufficient to recognize that it is a good faith and negligence, the disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount is legitimate.

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 44,49,170 for the first term of August 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2009 and value-added tax of KRW 5,959,230 for the second term of November 1, 2008 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 5 (including each number), and the whole purport of arguments.

A. From March 31, 2008 to September 20, 2008, the Plaintiff operated a gas station under the trade name called “AAAAAAAA gas station”. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, the Plaintiff received 9 tax invoices of KRW 260,2140,000 in total from 35,40,000 won in supply value from the EE Energy Seoul Branch (hereinafter “EE Energy Branch”) in the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008 (hereinafter “the tax invoice of this case”). The Plaintiff received the tax invoice of KRW 721-12 in the amount of each value-added tax from the output tax amount, and reported and paid the amount of each value-added tax to the Defendant by deducting the amount of each of the above input tax amount from the output tax amount.

B. On September 2008, the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) around January 2008, the FF Director of the Central Tax Office confirmed DD Energy and EE Energy as data that issued false tax invoices without real transactions; and (b) notified the Defendant of the data.

C. Accordingly, after conducting a tax investigation on the Plaintiff on May 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice received from DD Energy and EE Energy as a false tax invoice; and (b) deducted the value-added tax amount from the Plaintiff on August 1, 2009; (c) notified the Plaintiff of KRW 44,49,170 for the first term portion of 2008; and (d) KRW 5,959,230 for the second term portion of 271 value-added tax for the year 2008 on November 1, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on January 13, 2010 on the first period correction disposition on January 2008, 2008. On February 25, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with each Tax Tribunal on the second period correction disposition on February 25, 2010, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims on March 25, 2010 after the joint examination of each of the above claims.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff confirmed that he is a normal business operator by receiving a copy of the business registration certificate and a copy of the petroleum sales registration certificate prior to the transaction with DD Energy and EE Energy, and actually purchased oil and remitted oil price to DD Energy and EE Energy's business account, and received the tax invoice of this case. Thus, the tax invoice of this case cannot be deemed as a false tax invoice, and even if the plaintiff supplied oil to the plaintiff by forging the name of DD Energy and EE Energy, it is illegal for the defendant to deny the deduction of the input tax amount related to the tax invoice of this case, since the plaintiff was a bona fide business operator who did not know the name of the plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Facts recognized

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account each of the evidence, evidence, evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 7 (including each number), and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, which are either in dispute between the parties or in dispute.

(1) The process of confirmation of DNA energy data

(A) DD Energy was established on July 25, 2007. At the time of the application for petroleum business registration, GG HH HH HH 516-5 located at the time of the application for petroleum business registration, submitted a lease contract for the oil tank of 50,000 liter, but there was no actual use of the oil tank during the project period.

(B) The tax invoice and the shipment slips in the name of DD Energy were prepared by Kim K-K, which was in charge of accounting under the direction of the Kim JJ, the actual operator of DD Energy. The shipment slips prepared were not printed with the unique trade name of the shipping company, and the shipment slips were not recorded with the shipping source and oil source, and were written in a lump sum, so the temperature and proportion were equally stated.

(C) In addition, the Incheon 88 U.S.F. 9757 vehicle, which is a transport vehicle listed on the shipment slip issued by DD Energy, was not a vehicle indicated in DD Energy's petroleum sales registration certificate, and as a result, it was confirmed that the oil was shipped to the above vehicle.

(D) As a result of a tax investigation conducted from September 18, 2008 to December 26, 2008 on the first taxable period of value-added tax in 2008, the Director of the Regional Tax Office of Central Regional Tax Office: (a) closed the business of 112,115,000 won equivalent to approximately 93.81% of the total amount of D Energy reported; and (b) reported total purchase amount of KRW 119,394,00,000 equivalent to approximately 93.17% of the total amount of KRW 119,394,000,000,000, which was 1111,245,000,000 won, which was not accompanied by each real transaction; and (c) disposed of D Energy ex officio on December 24, 2009.

(E) From November 28, 2008 to January 23, 2009, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted a survey on the data on four companies, including RR energy, etc., and found that the petroleum materials received a tax invoice from the first data and issued the tax invoice to the lower-tier subsidiary instead of the sales distributor of illegal petroleum products, and discovered the fact that the false sales and purchase tax invoice were issued to the lower-tier subsidiary. At the time, D Energy received a false tax invoice from the intermediate merchant SS energy or RR energy and received false tax invoice from the intermediate merchant because it was judged that it was responsible for delivering the false tax invoice to the lower-tier subsidiary, etc.

(F) On June 18, 2009, the Daejeon District Court rendered a judgment of conviction on the charge that, in relation to the prosecution's indictments by the above measures of the tax authorities, on June 18, 2009, the branch court of the Daejeon District Court rendered a false tax invoice was issued or delivered to the KimJ, the actual operator of DNA energy, KimJ, and Lee PP, even though there was no transaction of goods or services such as RR energy, etc. between the company and the company, and the company, and the company, the Kim J was sentenced to imprisonment of four years and a fine of 161.4 billion won, and the PP was sentenced to a fine of 1.6 years and 76.8 billion won in full, and the Daejeon High Court, the appellate court, which was the appellate court, found the guilty of some criminal facts accompanying real transactions among the above criminal facts under the 2009No250,000,000 won, was sentenced to a fine of 3 months and 6.6 billion won in full mitigation of the sentence against KimJ.

(2) The process of confirmation of EE Energy Data

(A) EE Energy was established on May 16, 2008, under the name of YY, as the de facto agent, on May 16, 2008, and closed its business on September 30, 2008. While registering a petroleum retail business, three oil storage facilities and three oil-transport vehicles were reported on September 30, 200, there was no fact that they were used once during the business period. Transport vehicles listed in EE Energy was not vehicles listed in EE Energy’s petroleum retail business registration certificate, but in oil refineries, it was confirmed that there was no details of the shipment of the said vehicle.

(B) As a result of the tax investigation conducted from January 19, 2009 to April 7, 2009 on the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2008, the head of Mapo District Tax Office decided that the total amount of the EE Energy reported and the total amount of KRW 3,488,780,000, and the total amount of the purchase reported and the total amount of KRW 3,47,898,181, did not involve any real transaction, and filed an accusation against the EE Energy with the prosecution as data.

(3) The Plaintiff and DD Energy Trading Circumstances, etc.

Around April 2008, the Plaintiff introduced the ZO of Z Energy from the Z stations with which the Plaintiff’s spouse is married, and started transactions with the Z Energy. During the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, the amount of transactions with the Z was 30% of the total purchase amount of KRW 884,565,973 as KRW 262.145,456, and the total purchase amount was 884,565,973 from April 17, 2008 to July 4, 2008.

D. Determination

(1) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to cases where the goods or services are supplied as actual condition or are not in accord with the price, time, etc. of the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services. As seen earlier, D Energy and EE Energy were accused of the fact that they were distributed real property, and the judgment of conviction was finalized on the grounds that the DDW, EE Energy, EE Energy, the actual operator of the DE Energy, and EE Energy, the delivery of false tax invoice, and the fact that there was no use of the DD Energy, EE Energy, oil storage facilities or vehicles at the time of the petroleum business registration, the actual purchase place of the oil of this case was purchased from any third party, not DD Energy, EE Energy, and therefore, it is reasonable that the Plaintiff's actual purchase place constitutes a false tax invoice.

(2) Furthermore, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the disguised fact in the name of the instant tax invoice, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the fact that the supplier was unaware of the nominal name of the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Accordingly, the purchaser of the input tax deduction or refund should prove that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in the nominal name of the tax invoice (see

(3) Rather, the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition (i.e., ① the shipment slips issued at oil reservoir generally are issued four copies, one copy of the remaining two copies, signed and sealed by the seller, and one copy is placed in custody by the consignee. While the shipment slips issued at the time of shipment at the Daejeon Clean Oil Logistics Center were signed and sealed by the consignee. While the Plaintiff stated the shipment slips issued at the time of shipment from DD energy and EE energy, the Plaintiff did not sign oil sources or carriers, and it was hard to accept the shipment slips at the time of the Plaintiff’s failure to identify the shipment of the oil at the time of the determination of the volume of the oil. However, even if the Plaintiff did not know of the Plaintiff’s trade in the name of the supplier, it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff was made a false supplier at the time of the Plaintiff’s trade without knowing the fact that the Plaintiff had purchased the oil at the time of sale of 200 million won or more, the Plaintiff did not know the fact that the Plaintiff had made the sale of the oil at the time of the sale of D Energy.

(4) Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was bona fide and without fault. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice 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.