early 201J 3601 ( December 27, 2011)

When a oil supplier receives a tax invoice different from the fact, the plaintiff's good faith and negligence cannot be recognized.

The tax invoice of this case is a tax invoice different from the fact that the oil supplier constitutes a tax invoice, and the business place on the name of the Plaintiff is different from the business place on the business registration, the shipment slips have not been verified properly, and the Plaintiff operated the gas station for a long time, etc. cannot be recognized in full view of the fact that the Plaintiff had operated the gas station for a long time.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

IsaA

Head of the Office of Government

November 27, 2012

January 22, 2013

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 on July 8, 201 with the Plaintiff KRW 200 for the second period of 2006, KRW 000 for the first period of 2007, and KRW 000 for the second period of 2007, and KRW 000 for the first period of 2008, and KRW 000 for the second period of 2008.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From March 25, 2002, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice of this case") from the Plaintiff for the supply price of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as "FG energy," 'H energy," 'H energy,' and 'FF energy' in the second taxable period from 2006 to 2008, and reported the value-added tax after deducting the relevant input tax amount from 00.0 years, and 20 years, 20 years, 20 years, 7 years, 20 years, 200, 7 years, 20 years, 7 years, 7 years, 200, 200, 7 years, 7 years, 7 years, 200, 7 years, 7 years, 200, 7 years, 20, 7 years, 20, 200, 7 years, 16, 2016, 20.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, the entries in 1, 2, and 6 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In light of the fact that this individual purchased oil and did not have funds or ability to supply it to the Plaintiff, and F Energy does not play a full role in data, but actually supplied oil to the Plaintiff, and the actual supplier of oil to the Plaintiff is not a corporate entity, such as FF Energy, or a corporate entity, and the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

2) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff started transactions with FF energy, etc. and received documents such as its business registration certificate, petroleum sales registration certificate, and corporate account copy, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid the oil price to each corporate account and paid the amount including value-added tax, and the Plaintiff has no practical benefit from trading with this Section even at the risk of non-deduction of input tax amount, and the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice is false

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact that the entries in the tax invoice are different from the fact that the necessary entries in the tax invoice constitute a case where the entity that actually supplies or is supplied with the goods or services and the price and time of the supply despite the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. entered between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996). Therefore, if the transaction party that supplied oil to the Plaintiff is not the F Energy, etc. which is a supplier under the tax invoice in this case, the tax invoice in this case should be deemed to be different from the fact that the Plaintiff supplied oil to the Plaintiff, and the FF, etc. in this case, supplied the Plaintiff with oil, were verified as data issued without any real transaction, and that each company or its related person (GJJ) was no other than the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the tax invoice in this case and submitted the tax invoice in this case, and that the Plaintiff was no other reason to be found guilty.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

An actual supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice shall not be allowed to deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who was supplied, was not negligent in not aware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the above fact, a person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove it (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002)

However, the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone does not appear to have any other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's good and without fault, and rather, it appears that the plaintiff did not verify that the plaintiff was actually engaged in the sale of the plaintiff's oil at the time of the sale of the plaintiff's 3, and Eul's 2 through 8 (including the paper numbers) after considering the overall purport of the arguments, and that the plaintiff was asked to name this II as director at the time of the first transaction with F Energy, but it seems that the address of the above company was entered at the government, while the above order was entered in F Energy's business registration certificate, it seems that the plaintiff could have easily confirmed that there was no other evidence that the plaintiff did not confirm the shipment of the plaintiff's oil at the time of the sale of the plaintiff's oil at the FF market, and that the plaintiff did not know that there was no other material to prove that the plaintiff's sale of the oil at the time of the sale of the plaintiff's oil at the time of the sale of the plaintiff's 9th sale of the oil at the above 9th sale.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.