Early High Court Decision 201J 1332 (Law No. 1107.07)

The instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier is entered, and it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence.

In full view of the fact that a person entered in the instant tax invoice files an accusation with the prosecutor, that he did not possess oil storage facilities, such as oil reservoirs, and that he managed oil carriers or did not prepare books, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier’s entries are different from the fact, and it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap3932 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

KimAAA

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

July 3, 2012

July 24, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 of the value-added tax for January 3, 201 and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the Plaintiff in 2009, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second year in 2009, and the value-added tax for the first year in 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 1, 2001, the Plaintiff operated a gas station with the trade name of 'OO station' from 000 to 'OO station', and the Plaintiff received the purchase tax invoice (hereinafter "the instant tax invoice") from the EE Ppetro Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "EE Ppetro") as follows, and was reported as input tax amount at the time of return of the value-added tax return for 1 and 2 years in 2009 and 1 January 2010.

B. On January 3, 2011, the Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff without real transaction, and each of the instant tax invoices is subject to false disguised processing input tax invoices, and deducted input tax amount for transaction portion with EEM, thereby correcting and notifying the Plaintiff respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 25, 2011, but the said appeal was dismissed on July 7 of the same year.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5-1 to 8, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff actually purchased oil from the EE page and received the instant tax invoice, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice. Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party inasmuch as the Plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate, the petroleum sales registration certificate, the shipment slips, etc., purchased oil, and completed necessary verification and evidence expenses incurred in ordinary transactions, such as transfer of the purchase price to the passbook. Accordingly, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Details of data surveys by the Central Regional Tax Office of the EEpetro

(A) On January 8, 2009, EE Ppetro is an oil wholesaler operated with the head of the non-U.S.O.O. 000 Omert 303 Omert 303, and the following facts were confirmed as a result of the tax investigation by the Central Tax Office of the EE Ppetro:

1) Although EEpet lines are oil wholesalers, they did not own oil storage facilities and oil transport vehicles at all, and did not keep account books of oil transactions or driving technicians at the place of business.

2) On the other hand, the shipment slips issued by the E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EM is returned respectively and instead issued the shipment slips in the name of E E E E E E

3) All of the EEpetros, Grandland Co., Ltd., GGppers, and H Energy Co., Ltd. were confirmed to be a so-called data that falsely issued tax invoices without real transactions.

4) The oil price that was transferred by account transfer from the gas stations to the EE Ppet shall immediately be transferred to the data supplier, and the total amount of the oil price was withdrawn in cash.

(B) Based on the above facts, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office confirmed that the EE PP is the data that has falsely issued and received a tax invoice without real transactions, and filed a complaint against the prosecutor's office for the suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on the ground that all sales and purchase transactions from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 are the processing transactions.

(2) Trade, etc. between the Plaintiff and EEpetro

(A) The plaintiff, in the course of trading with EEpet, has obtained the business registration certificate, the registration certificate of the transported vehicle, and the registration certificate for the petroleum selling business, and the registration certificate for the petroleum selling business is written as '9 weeks at the time of storage'.

(B) In 209, 1, 209, and 1, 2010, the Plaintiff received oil from EEpetro during the Value-Added Tax period, received tax invoices issued by EEpetro, and shipping slips and transaction specifications, and remitted oil to EEpet account after receiving oil.

(C) Unlike those issued by 4th EEpet lines, the shipment slips issued by EEpet lines were all the blanks, weight, density, card number, shipper, etc., and did not indicate the shipment time other than the shipment date, and all temperatures were 10.

[Ground of recognition] The whole purport of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6-1 to 33, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2, and the whole purport of the arguments

D. Determination

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

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are different from the actual entries in the tax invoice are those in which the goods or services are supplied or supplied, and the price and time of the goods or services are not different (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed that this case is health, as well as the facts recognized earlier, and, i.e.,, the EE page only contains data on which the tax invoice was falsely issued and received during the period from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 201, and that the Plaintiff did not submit the tax invoice to the prosecution for the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and that the Plaintiff did not submit the tax invoice to the EE page or the list to the prosecution for the first two years after being issued the tax invoice or the list to the EE page or the list to which the Plaintiff did not receive the tax invoice or the list to the E page or the list.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice are not entitled to deduct or refund the input tax amount, unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the actual name of the invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the above fact of the invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in finding the invoice or service, the supplier should prove that the supplier was not aware of the actual name of the invoice or service, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the invoice or service was supplied for 0 years before the date of the issuance and delivery, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the invoice or service was supplied, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the invoice or service was supplied for 0 years before the date of the actual transaction, and that the supplier did not know of the fact that the invoice or service was supplied for 0 years before the date of the actual transaction, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the actual name of the invoice or service, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that the invoice or service was supplied for 2 years before the date of the sale.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.