Seocho 2010west 1553 (2010.08)

a false or processed tax invoice prepared differently from the actual oil transaction

The imposition of value-added tax is legitimate, but the imposition of corporate tax is illegal because it is difficult to deem that there was no negligence on the part of failing to know the name of the tax invoice because it could have known that it was a false or processed tax invoice prepared differently from the actual transaction if more attention was paid to the oil transaction.

2010Guhap38615 Value-Added Tax Imposition Disposition, etc.

〇〇주식회사

〇〇세무서장

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 18,264,060 of corporate tax for the business year 2007 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2010 and KRW 20,92,850 of corporate tax for the business year 2008 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Paragraph 1 and the defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 207 against the plaintiff on February 1, 2010 and the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 8,583,750 won, and value-added tax for the second term of 208 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 유류 도 ・ 소매업 등을 하는 회사로서 2007년 2기의 부가가치세 부과기간 중 주식회사 〇〇석유 〇〇지점(이하 '제1거래처'라 한다)으로부터, 2008년 2기의 부가 가치세 과세기간 중 주식회사 〇〇석유 □□지점(이하 '제2거래처'라 한다)과 주식회사 △△에너지 △△지점(이하 '제3거래처'라 하고 제1, 2거래처와 통칭하여 '이 사건 각 거래처'라 한다)으로부터 아래 표와 같은 내용의 각 세금계산서(이하 '이 사건 각 세금계산서'라 한다)를 교부받아 각 과세기간의 부가가치세 신고시 매입세액을 공제받고, 법인세 신고시 매입액을 손금에 산입하였다.

나. 서〇〇세무서장, 중부지방국세청장, 동△△세무서장은 2009.3.경부터 2009.6.경까지 이 사건 각 거래처에 대한 세무조사를 실시한 후, 이 사건 각 거래처가 실물 거래 없이 이 사건 세금계산서를 발행한 것으로 확인하고 이를 피고에게 통보하였다.

C. On February 10, 2010, the Defendant deemed each of the tax invoices of this case as the tax invoice received without real transaction, and thus issued a revised disposition of KRW 8,583,750 on February 10, 201, value-added tax for the second term of 2007, value-added tax for the second term of 208, and KRW 14,429,350 on February 10, 200 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposing value-added tax”), and the revised disposition of KRW 18,264,060 on corporate tax for the business year of 207, KRW 20,92,850 on corporate tax for the business year of 208 (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposing corporate tax”). Each of the instant value-added tax

In general, ‘the disposition of this case' was taken, and ‘the disposition of this case'.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 (including each number);

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff purchased light oil and gasoline total of 10,000 liters (hereinafter "the oil of this case") from each of the transaction parties of this case upon the recommendation of the ChoA by employees of the △ Energy Co., Ltd., which had been known to the past, and paid the price to the deposit account of each of the transaction parties of this case, but the defendant's disposition of this case under the premise that all transactions with each of the transaction parties of this case are processed is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

A) In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction constitutes a “unlawful tax invoice” under Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010) where the deduction of an input tax amount is denied on the ground that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods is a transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). Moreover, a supplier and a supplier under a tax invoice are liable to the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). A supplier and a supplier under a tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the person who received the tax is not negligent in not knowing the above nominal transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1888, Jun. 111, 2009).

나) 을 제2 내지 9호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 제1거래처는 〇〇 〇〇구 〇〇동 1240 〇〇주택 201호를, 제2거래처는 □□ □□구 □□동 73-4 □□빌딩 301호를, 제3거래처는 △△시 □□구 □□동 997에 있는 사무실을 각 사업장으로 임차하기는 하였으나, 이 사건 각 거래처 모두 유류저장시설 및 수송장비를 보유하고 있지 않거나 임차한 유류저장시설 및 수송장비를 사용하지 아니하였던 사실,② 제1거래처는 자료상으로 고발된 △△▽▽석유, 주식회사 ●●에너지, 주식회사 ◇◇에너지 등의 업체로부터, 제2거래처는 자료상으로 고발된 △△▽▽석유, 주식회사 ◇◇에너지 등의 업체로부터, 제3거래처는 자료상으로 고발된 AA석유, BB에너지 등의 업체로부터 각 가공 매입세금계산서를 수취하고 출하전표를 위조하는 등의 수법으로 원고 등 매출 거래처에 자신이 실질적으로 유류를 공급하지 아니하고 허위세금계산서를 교부하는 등의 비정상적인 영업을 하였는데, 제1거래처의 경우 2007년 2기부터 2008년 2기까지 부가가치세 매출과세표준 313억 967만 원 중 약 99.74%에 해당하는 312억 3,100만 원의 허위세금계산서를, 제2거래처의 경우 2008년 1기부터 2008년 2기까지 부가가치세 매출과세표준 93억 100만 원의 100%에 해당하는 93억 100만 원의 허위세금계산서를, 제3거래처는 2008년 1기부터 2008년 2기까지 부가가치세 매출과세표준 214억 5,400만 원의 96.96%에 해당하는 208억 200만 원의 허위세금 계산서를 각 교부하였던 사실,③ 서〇〇세무서장, 중부지방국세청장, 동△△세무서장은 이 사건 각 거래처에 대한 세무조사 후 이 사건 각 거래처 및 그 대표자들을 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 허위로 발행 ・ 교부하였다는 등의 내용으로 고발하였던 사실,④ 원고가 이 사건 각 거래처로부터 유류를 공급받으면서 교부받은 출하전표라고 주장하는 갑 8호증의 1 내지 5의 출하전표 중 갑 8호증의 1, 2, 4의 출하전표는 정상적인 출하전표가 아니고, 갑 8호증의 3과 갑 8호증의 5의 출하전표는 발행자가 제2거래처와 제3거래처가 아닌 CC뱅크 주식회사와 DD에너지 주식회사로 되어 있는 사실,⑤ 이 사건 각 거래처 명의의 예금계좌에 입금된 자금은 현금으로 출금된 후 차명 계좌로 입금되는 등 금융거래가 조작된 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 이러한 사실을 종합하면 이 사건 각 거래처는 실물거래를 하지 않은 채 비과세 유류를 보유한 자와 원고 등 주유소업을 하는 자 사이에 실물거래가 이루어지도록 하면서 이 사건 각 거래처 명의의 세금계산서 등을 발행하여 마치 이 사건 각 거래처가 직접 실물거래를 한 것처럼 가장한 것으로 보이므로, 원고가 수취한 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 이 사건 각 거래처가 실질적으로 유류를 공급하지 않았음에도 그가 유류를 공급한 것처럼 작성된 허위 또는 가공의 세금계산서에 해당한다.

C) Furthermore, we examine whether the Plaintiff was negligent in not knowing that each of the instant tax invoices was nominal and did not know the fact.

In full view of the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 8, evidence Nos. 4 and 5-2, evidence Nos. 6, evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 7 and 9-3, each of the statements Nos. 10 and 10 and 13, and each of the testimony of EB and ECC, the Plaintiff was provided with oil of this case five times for five times after the Plaintiff supplied oil less than the arm’s length price from ChoA. However, according to each of the above evidence, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was not negligent in the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of supplying the oil of this case without knowing the identity of each of the parties to this case or any of the parties to this case, and it is difficult to view that each of the parties to this case’s actual transaction with each of the parties to this case’s own supplying each of the oil of this case, and that each of the parties to this case’s supplying each of the oil of this case was not aware of the fact that each of the parties to this case’s actual transaction of this case’s supply.

D) Accordingly, each disposition of value-added tax of this case is lawful.

If a tax invoice on a part of any of the expenses reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely without a real transaction conducted by the tax authorities, and the tax invoice is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost and if it is proved that the other party to the tax obligor's payment is a reasonable road, it is necessary to prove the fact that such expenses have been actually paid by the taxpayer and to prove it in the taxpayer's account book keeping and evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

As seen earlier, each of the tax invoices received by the Plaintiff is prepared by each of the instant transaction partners differently from the actual transaction. However, comprehensively taking account of the entries of No. 3-1 to No. 8, No. 9-1 to No. 3, No. 10, and No. 13, and the overall purport of the pleadings by the witness BB and ECC, the Plaintiff cannot be viewed as having been present at the Plaintiff on December 14, 2007, with regard to the purchase of the oil of this case which is unlawfully distributed from ChoA, and as to the purchase of the oil of this case, the Plaintiff could not be seen as having been supplied to the Plaintiff on December 23, 2007, No. 472, and No. 727, Dec. 207, 2007, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been supplied to the Plaintiff with the above legal entity account No. 20, Sep. 9, 2008, 2005.

Therefore, the imposition of each corporate tax of this case on the premise that the oil transaction price of this case was not actually disbursed as necessary expenses is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.