early 2012 Heavy028 (Law No. 112, 04.30)

No normal oil transaction shall be deemed a normal oil transaction, and it is difficult to see that he/she has fulfilled his/her duty of due care

In light of the fact that the purchasing agency is an enterprise which has been accused of the prosecution due to data, and if purchasing at a price lower than the market price, it may be recognized that it would not go through normal distribution procedures, and that there is no oil storage facility and transport vehicle, it is difficult to regard the transaction with the purchasing agency as a normal transaction, and it is difficult to see that it has fulfilled its duty of care as a good manager in the course of receiving oil.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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

KimA

Head of Central Tax Office

April 17, 2013

May 29, 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 for the first period (this tax) for the Plaintiff on January 3, 201, 2009, value-added tax for the second period (this tax) for the second period (this tax) in 2009, value-added tax for the second period (this tax) in 2009, and value-added tax for the first period (1) in 2009 on February 4, 2013, and value-added tax for the second period (additional tax) in 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 29, 2005, the Plaintiff run a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name of “BB gas station” in Ansan-si from around 000 to “B gas station in Ansan-si.”

B. The Plaintiff received each tax invoice of KRW 000 in total, and KRW 000 in total, the supply value during the 1st VAT taxable period in 2009, fromCC Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC Energy”), and filed a value added tax return including the supply value in the input tax amount subject to deduction.

C. On January 7, 2011, the Defendant denied the input tax offer by deeming the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact, and imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2009 (the tax 000 + the additional tax 000), and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2009 (the tax 000 + the additional tax 000 won) respectively.

D. On December 8, 201, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with each of the above dispositions, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for adjudication, but was dismissed on April 30, 2012.

E. After that, the Defendant revoked only each of the above additional taxes ex officio on the grounds that the above imposition of additional taxes was not specified in the type and calculation basis thereof, and on February 4, 2013, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff KRW 000 for additional taxes on the first quarter value-added tax in 2009, and KRW 000 for additional taxes on the second quarter value-added tax in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The non-satched facts are described in Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 2, and 28, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice fromCC energy, and thus, cannot be deemed as constituting a false tax invoice, and even if the actual supplier of domestic oil is not theCC energy, the Plaintiff was unaware of it, and was not aware of it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

A) It is necessary for a taxpayer who is liable to pay value-added tax to prove that a tax invoice submitted by a person liable to pay value-added tax on the basis of input tax was falsely prepared without a real transaction, or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the fact, and that it is proved to be actual purchase, or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed, and that a transaction with a supplier listed in a tax invoice claimed by a person liable to pay value-added tax has been proved to be considerably false, and that it is easy for a taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, as to the actual transaction with a supplier listed in a tax invoice, and that it is difficult for a taxpayer to present data such as books and evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 200). In addition, those who are to receive a tax invoice and deliver a tax invoice to a person who supplies goods or services, and those who actually supplied or services, should be declared value-added 2000.

(B) In full view of these circumstances, Gap 2, Eul 13, and Eul 3, and 5 through 11, each of the above entry in the tax invoice (if available, including each number), and the witness D, and all of the testimony and arguments of the E, are recognized as follows, and ① as a result of the tax investigation by a medium regional tax office, the oil of this case was supplied to the FF tro (hereinafter referred to as "F tro") in the order of the plaintiff in the documents, and the FF tro are identified as a material company that had issued all the sales tax invoices without real transactions, andCC 3, and the oil was also identified as a material company that had no record of the fact that the supplier supplied the oil in cash, and that there was no record of the fact that the supplier's purchase of the oil in this case was carried out by the supplier, and that there was no more than 2,0000 if the other tax invoice was supplied to the supplier's account and no more than 2,000,000.

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on the 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 tax invoice shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was issued a company’s business registration certificate at the time of the transaction withCC energy, and a petroleum sales registration certificate and an order issued to its employees; (b) the Plaintiff transferred the corresponding amount to the company’s account after the issuance of the instant tax invoice fromCC energy; and (c) the current situation where the Plaintiff did not know that the Plaintiff was actually supplying the instant tax invoice to the company; (b) the Plaintiff did not know that the oil supplier was not actuallyCC energy; and (c) the Plaintiff did not know or know that the oil supplier was not actually supplying the instant tax invoice; and (d) the Plaintiff did not know or know that the oil supplier was not actually supplyingCC energy; and (e) the Plaintiff did not know or know whether the oil supplier was actually supplying the instant tax invoice at the time; and (e) the Plaintiff did not know or know whether the oil supplier was actually supplying the instant tax invoice at the time; and (e) the Plaintiff did not know or know whether there was any other complicated structure and location of the instant tax invoice at issue.

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.