early 201J 3448 ( December 08, 2011)

It is insufficient to recognize that there was no knowledge of the supplier's name violation or negligence in the absence of such knowledge, and thus, it shall not be deemed a good-faith transaction party.

In light of the normal structure and distribution channel of the oil supply, the general form or method of the industry, and the attitude and risk of the material transactions widely spread in the oil industry, etc., the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact of the supplier’s misrepresentation, or that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier.

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAH Co., Ltd.

Head of Si Tax Office

September 26, 2013

November 21, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on the Plaintiff on March 7, 201, 207, the main OOOO of the value-added tax for the second term of 2007, the main OOO of the main tax for the first term of 2008, the main tax for the second term of 2008, the imposition of OOO of the value-added tax for the second term of 2007 on February 8, 2013, the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2007, the additional tax for the corporate tax of 2007, the additional tax for the corporate tax of 2007, and the additional tax for the corporate tax of 208 is revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation running gas station business from May 2007 to OO-dong 752-3 of O-si.

B. From February 2, 2007 to February 2008, the Plaintiff received a total purchase tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) as follows from BB Energy Co., Ltd., Ltd.,CC Energy, DD Energy Co., Ltd., Ltd., EE Petroleum Co., Ltd., EE Petroleum Co., Ltd., and FF Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) during the taxation period of the value added tax, and deducted the pertinent input tax amount from the output tax amount, filed a value added tax return, and filed a corporate tax return by including the relevant input tax amount in deductible expenses.”

C. The Defendant: (a) deemed the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact; (b) denied the input tax amount; (c) added an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount of the tax invoice received differently from the fact to the corporate tax; (b) removed the Plaintiff, on March 7, 2011, the value-added tax 2007, OOOO, 1, 2008, OOO, 2008, 207, OOO, and 208, 2007, respectively; and (c) revoked the disposition imposing additional tax and corporate tax on 201.2 years, 207, 2007, OO, 208, 207, 201, 207, 201, 207, 2008, 201, 201, 207, 2007, 2008, 207.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 12-16 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff was supplied with the actual oil from the instant transaction parties and received the instant tax invoice. Since the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(2) Even though the business parties of this case are not actual suppliers of oil, the Plaintiff was unaware of such fact, and there was no negligence in not knowing such fact, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

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

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that “if any content of a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact, it shall only include the title of income, profit, property, act, or transaction subject to taxation, and there is a separate person to whom such content belongs, the person to whom such content belongs shall be liable as a taxpayer” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996; 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996; 200, a person who is liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed as a person who, in light of the legal principles as seen above, provides goods or service to a person to whom such goods or service are supplied or supplied, regardless of the formal content of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service, and thus, does not coincide with the original contents of the tax invoice.”

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without negligence

(A) Unless there are extenuating circumstances, an entrepreneur who actually supplies and a supplier’s other tax invoices are different from the fact that the person who received the tax invoices was unaware of the fact that the entries were entered in the tax invoices, and was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the input tax amount cannot be deducted or refunded, and the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove that the person who received the tax invoices was not negligent on the part of the person who did not know of the fact that the name was entered (see, e.g.

(B) According to the evidence Nos. 3-7 (Additional Number No. 1-3), the Plaintiff may be found to have received a copy of the petroleum sales business registration certificate, a business registration certificate, etc. at the time of the instant transaction with the instant transaction partners, and the Plaintiff transferred the amount corresponding thereto to the corporate account of the said transaction parties after the instant tax invoice was issued. However, the following circumstances can be seen by comprehensively considering the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in each evidence Nos. 10 and 11, i.e., ① the Plaintiff, other than the instant transaction partners, was engaged in the oil transaction with GG, the normal structure and the distribution route of the oil supply, the general form or method of the industry, and the material form of the oil industry, and the oil industry, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff could not receive the shipment slip itself from the previous transaction partners who were accused of the instant tax invoice in light of the fact that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff could have received the shipment slip more easily than that of the instant transaction parties.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.