Cho High 201 Jeon 2410 ( November 09, 2011)

The instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice for the supplier, and the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence should not be recognized.

The instant tax invoice constitutes a different tax invoice from the market room, and the Plaintiff was negligent in having known or not aware that the person entered as the supplier was not the actual counterparty of the transaction.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax

Jeong-hee

Head of Cheongju Tax Office

June 14, 2012

June 28, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of value-added tax and penalty tax of KRW 000 for the first time of 2010 against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 12, 2010 to May 201, the Plaintiff operated “D gas station” from 000 to 000 Odong-gu Cheongju-dong (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2010, the Plaintiff received 9 copies of the tax invoice (hereinafter “each of the tax invoices in this case”) equivalent to the aggregate value of supply from EE Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EE Energy”), and filed a return and payment of the first taxable value for the year 2010 after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount.

C. However, the Defendant, and the EE Energy, correspond to the data that issued tax invoices without real transactions, and accordingly deducted the input tax amount on the grounds that each of the tax invoices of this case is false, and revised and notified the Plaintiff on April 1, 201, the sum of the value-added tax and additional tax for the first period of 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the theory, as described in the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 12, and Eul evidence 5 (in case there are numbers, including numbers, and hereinafter the same), and changes

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As a result of the investigation into the EE Energy, it was confirmed that some transactions of the EE Energy are real transactions, and at least the initial transactions between the EE Energy and the Plaintiff are likely to have actually supplied oil to the Plaintiff, each of the instant tax invoices cannot be deemed to be false.

2) Even if each of the tax invoices in this case constitutes a false tax invoice, and on April 2010, YG, the plaintiff or the actual operator of the gas station in this case, had no experience of operating the gas station until operating the gas station in this case for the first time, and directly finding the EE Energy office, confirm all relevant documents, such as the registration certificate of EE energy, the petroleum export-import business registration certificate, etc., and confirm that EE energy is a normal business operator at the National Tax Service home site, and there was no negligence that the plaintiff or YG did not know that EE energy is a disguised business operator, and there was no negligence that the plaintiff or YG did not know that EE energy is a disguised business operator.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On August 208, 2008, GGG in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff worked as a gas station at “HHH station located in OOdong, and on December 12, 2009, Kim III, the main owner of the gas station, Kim III, etc. leased and operated the gas station in this case, and around that time, GG was living with the Plaintiff on the second floor of the gas station in this case and worked as the head of the management office. Thereafter, on April 2, 2010, Kim III, etc. were to discontinue the operation of the gas station in this case, and the Plaintiff and GGG commenced directly operating the gas station in the name of the Plaintiff on April 12, 2010, after concluding a lease agreement with the gas station in this case.

2) On April 12, 2010, HG used KimL to serve as the head of the EE Energy’s business, conducted a product transaction contract with EE energy in the name of the Plaintiff after checking the business registration certificate of EE Energy, the certificate of registration for petroleum export and import, the certificate of the corporate register, the certified copy of the corporate passbook, and the resident registration certificate, the name of the representative, and the resident registration certificate of the EE energy in the name of the Plaintiff.

3) Thereafter, from April 19, 2010 to May 28, 2010, GG was supplied via nine times from EE Energy and received each of the instant tax invoices equivalent to the same amount. At the time, HG used the transaction method in which HG calls to the EE Energy side and deposits all or part of the price into the mooring of EE Energy under the name of EE Energy, and transportation engineers JJ or KK used the transportation of a certain quantity of transit to the gas station in this case, and after Kim LL used the method that HG calls to transfer a shipment slip, tax invoices, and transaction specifications, etc. to HG by mail or directly.

4) On the other hand, the petroleum export-import business registration certificate of the EE Energy directly confirmed by GGGG at the time of the commencement of the transaction is indicated as the "Ori-si, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the location of which is the petroleum storage facilities", and each shipment slip delivered by GGG from the EE energy side (hereinafter referred to as the "each shipment slip of this case") is written as the "OO oil reservoir". Meanwhile, each shipment slip of this case does not include not only the specific time for the shipment of the relevant oil, but also the posies, density, sulfur content, etc.

5) As a result of the investigation into the EE Energy, the director of the Daejeon District Tax Office notified the Defendant that the EE Energy, which was substantially operated by KimL, issued a false tax invoice without actual transactions, was a disguised business operator who actually purchased the EE Energy and the Plaintiff, etc. (However, the EE Energy was actually purchased from Seoul Petroleum until April 2, 2010, and approximately KRW 000 won of the supply price from the EE Energy until April 2, 2010, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff by deeming that each of the instant tax invoices was false in that the actual supplier entered the supplier into the EE Energy even if the actual supplier was not EE Energy.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 through Gap evidence 11, and Eul evidence 2 through Eul evidence 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a false tax invoice

A) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and if there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the person to whom it actually belongs shall be liable for tax payment in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the necessary entries in the tax invoice are in accord with those in which the goods or service is actually supplied or received, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

B) The following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the health stand, the above facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 9, and Eul evidence No. 10, and the overall purport of the arguments, are revealed as follows. (i) EE energy tax investigation results on the EE energy, and EE energy were actually operated by KimL, and it was revealed that the EE energy was in fact issued with false tax invoices without real transactions, and KimL had the record of issuing the processed tax invoice in the former operation of Bob Energy Co., Ltd., a disguised entrepreneur, and (ii) even until March 12, 2010, the EE energy was purchased and supplied an aggregate amount of 00 won from the supply price of OE oil and supplied them to the seller, and there was no difference between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's actual supply price and each of the EE tax invoices that did not meet the supply date of each of the above EE, while the EE was not verified as to the supply date of each of the above parts.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

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 other tax invoice shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who did not know the above fact of misrepresentation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) The evidence presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff did not know the name of the supplier listed in each of the tax invoices of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not know the fact. Rather, the fact of the recognition is as follows: ① the Plaintiff, together with the Plaintiff, has been working for the gas station or the manager for about one year before operating the oil station, so that all of the Plaintiff’s normal structure and distribution channels of the supply of the oil, and the general form or method of the industry and the risk of the trade in the oil industry were widely known, and in particular, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff or the supplier was not aware of the actual shipping price, and that the Plaintiff or the supplier was not aware of the actual shipping price, and that there was no other evidence to prove that there was no need to provide them after the entry of the list, and that there was no doubt as to whether there was any more than the actual shipping price than the market price, and that there was any need to provide them.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.