early 2012 Middle 1273 ( October 26, 2012)

The disposition imposing tax on the issue tax invoice by considering it as a false tax invoice is justifiable, and a tax notice stating the basis of calculation of additional tax is unlawful.

- The claimant did not verify the location of the representative and the office's place of work and the source of oil when purchasing oil less than normal prices, and it is difficult to deem that the claimant fulfilled his/her duty of care in good faith.

- A tax notice stating the basis of calculation of additional tax without distinguishing it is unlawful.

Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap13468 Disposition of revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition

AAA Energy Co., Ltd.

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 26, 2013

September 4, 2013

1. On November 14, 201, the Defendant revoked the imposition disposition of additional OOO on the first half-year value-added tax against the Plaintiff on November 14, 201.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant.

The defendant's imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of November 14, 201 against the plaintiff on November 14, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 1999, the Plaintiff is a corporation that runs the business of selling and selling petroleum in accordance with the OBO-dong 259-12, OB-dong 259-12.

B. In 207, the Plaintiff received two copies of the tax invoice of the OOOO (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) in the supply price during the first taxable period of the value-added tax, Inc. (hereinafter “CC Energy”), and filed a value added tax return including the supply price subject to the deduction in the input tax amount, and filed a corporate tax return by including the value of supply in the deductible expenses.

C. On November 14, 201, the Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a processed tax invoice; (b) denied the input tax deduction; and (c) imposed the Plaintiff the KRW OO of the value-added tax for the first term portion of the year 2007 on the Plaintiff, respectively, and the KRW OO of the corporate tax for the business year 2007.

D. On January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions, filed an objection with the director of the regional tax office, and filed an objection against the disposition of imposition of corporate tax on February 10 of the same year, but the objection against the disposition of imposition of value-added tax (hereinafter “instant disposition”) was dismissed. The Plaintiff again filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 6, 2012, and was dismissed on July 26 of the same year.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-satched Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was supplied with actual oil fromCC energy and received the instant tax invoice. Thus, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, and the instant disposition is unlawful.

2) Even if the actual supplier of oil is notCC energy, the Plaintiff was unaware of it, and there was no negligence in not knowing it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

3) As the Defendant did not specify the grounds for calculation of penalty tax in the instant disposition, the part of the penalty tax in the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) If a tax invoice submitted by a person liable for duty to pay value-added tax on the basis of input tax deduction is falsely prepared without a real transaction, or is different from the fact, it is proved by a tax office that it is real purchase, and the authenticity of the entries in the tax invoice is disputed, and where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier listed in the tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer is considerably false, it is necessary to prove that a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the actual transaction with a supplier listed in the tax invoice, and that it is easy for a person liable for duty to pay value-added tax to present data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20,

In addition, those who receive tax invoices from those who supply goods or services in accordance with the Value-Added Tax Act, and those who are obliged to provide tax invoices to those who supply goods or services, and those who are obliged to pay value-added taxes are not those who form a nominal legal relationship with those who supply goods or services, and those who actually receive goods or services from those who supply goods or services, or those who supply goods or services from those who supply them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2007Do10502, Jan. 28, 2010).

B) According to the evidence mentioned above, the oil in the tax invoice of this case was supplied to the plaintiff on the documents as a result of the investigation into the Seodaemun, and theCC energy was opened on January 4, 2007, and it was immediately closed on September 30 of the same year, and the related person was confirmed as the data issued by the processing of the tax invoice without real transaction and filed a complaint. In addition, at the time of the investigation into theCC energy, KimD, the representative director of theCC energy, had no evidence to find that it was actually operated as the insolvent who was residing in the apartment of the monthly OOOOOOOO of the apartment, while it was using the oil tank but did not have used the oil tank, and it was not equipped with the oil transport vehicle. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was supplied with the oil in this case as the oil tax invoice of this case cannot be seen as the plaintiff's actual supplier, and therefore, it is difficult to view the plaintiff's allegation that the plaintiff was supplied with the oil in this case.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount, unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice, and the person who received the tax invoice shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who did not know the above fact in the name of the invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) According to each description of the tax invoice, Gap 3, 4, and 5thm, it can be found that the plaintiff was issued a registration certificate copy, the business registration certificate, and the business manager's name at the time of the transaction withCC energy, and that the plaintiff was transferred the corresponding amount toCC energy corporate account after being issued the instant tax invoice fromCC energy, and that Park E-E was a director ofCC energy, and that the transaction with the plaintiff was confirmed by the plaintiff related to the instant tax invoice. However, the above facts alone cannot be said to be that the plaintiff was unaware and did not know that the actual supplier was notCC energy, and that there was no negligence.

Rather, according to the above evidence, Gap evidence 6, and evidence 7, the shipping slips received by the plaintiff after being supplied with oil can not be confirmed accurately because the shipping price is only O, and some of the shipping slips do not state the place of arrival as GG gas stations located in O, not the plaintiff, or the date of issuance of oil temperature, density, weight, and shipping slips. The plaintiff did not know that the oil was supplied to 20 to 30 won per liter than normal oil price, and the plaintiff did not know that the above facts and changes were combined with the supply structure of the oil industry and frequent data transactions using duty free oil, and that the plaintiff did not know that there was a need to closely examine whether the oil supplier was actually supplied with the oil, and that there was no special reason for the supply of the oil market and that there was no specific reason for the supply of the oil to the plaintiff.

3) Whether the disposition of this case was unlawful

A) When a single tax payment notice imposes both the principal tax and the additional tax, the tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax payment notice separately, and when multiple kinds of additional tax are to be imposed, it is natural for a taxpayer to per se by distinguishing the amount and the basis for calculation thereof from each other so that the details of each tax disposition can be identified. As such, the imposition of additional tax cannot be avoided if the taxpayer merely states the total amount of additional tax without disclosing the type and the basis for calculation of the amount thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012). However, even if there is any defect in which matters required by related Acts and subordinate statutes are omitted, if it is evident that a taxpayer already stated in the tax payment notice, etc. sent to the taxpayer prior to the tax payment notice, and it does not interfere with the determination of objection to the disposition and appeal, and the defect in the tax payment notice can be corrected or cured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20139Du9797, Mar.

B) We look at the instant disposition, and there is no circumstance to deem that there was no dispute between the parties to the instant disposition and that the defect was supplemented or cured, while the Defendant did not entirely state the basis or type of the calculation of the penalty tax in the instant disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is justified only for the above additional tax, and the other claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.