The plaintiff cannot recognize good faith and negligence in receiving a different tax invoice from the fact that the plaintiff entered the oil supplier.

The instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact that the entry of the oil supplier constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff did not request or receive the shipment slips, the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence cannot be recognized in light of the fact that the temperature, weight, density, etc. of oil was omitted in the shipment slips partially stored by the Plaintiff, and that it was possible to compare with the normal company.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX Kim

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

July 12, 2012

August 23, 2012

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax on June 2, 201 on the first term portion of 2009, value-added tax on the second term portion of 2009, value-added tax on the second term portion of 2009, and value-added tax on the first term portion of 2010 shall be revoked in all.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is an individual who operates a gas station under the trade name of "xx7-12 in Nam-gu, Incheon." The Plaintiff, while reporting value-added tax from the first period to the first period of 2009 to the first period of 2010, deducted the input tax amount on the tax invoice for the second period of 2009 + 000 won in 200 won in 209 + 000 won in 200 won in 209.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that in the above tax invoice, the total value of O Energy purchased oil from the Airport Petroleum Company Co., Ltd. and then supplied it again to the Plaintiff (i.e., the first quarter of 2009 + the second quarter of 2009 + the second quarter of 000 in 2009 + the second quarter of 2009 + the second quarter of 2000 in 2009 + the second quarter of 2009 + the second quarter of 2000 in 2009 + the remaining tax invoice of 200 in 200; hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”); (b) on June 2, 2011, the Defendant denied the input tax deduction; and (c) issued a disposition of this case that revises and imposes value-added tax as stated in the claim against the Plaintiff on June 2, 201.

C. On June 29, 201, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 29, 201, while filing the instant lawsuit on June 30, 2011. On March 27, 2012, the appeal was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice by being supplied with the actual oil from the OE and received the instant tax invoice. The instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice, but a false tax invoice. ② Even if not, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide trading party, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether a false tax invoice is false

The meaning that entries in a tax invoice under the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008 and Act No. 10409 of Dec. 27, 2010) are different from the facts, refers to cases where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction, which is subject to taxation, is nominal, and there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, and where there is another person to whom such ownership belongs, the person to whom such ownership belongs shall be liable for tax payment in accordance with the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that the necessary entries in a tax invoice shall apply to cases where the necessary entries in a tax invoice do not coincide with those in a transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10

In addition to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the argument in each of the above statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including each number), the oil of this case was supplied from Y Co., Ltd. Y (hereinafter referred to as "YY") to Y (hereinafter referred to as "YY") on the documents, in the order of the Plaintiff from YY (hereinafter referred to as "YY"), and from YP, in the order of the Plaintiff. All of YY or YP were accused of the material company that issued the tax invoice without real transactions, and the related party was accused of the purchase of 93.6% and sales 94.2% of the material company, and the related party was accused of the fact that the customer or place of destination of the oil shipment in the oil oil oil oil of this case was insufficient, and the remaining part of the evidence that the plaintiff could not be found to have been found to have been against the witness of the 2OMM and the remaining part of the oil company's testimony and its supply excluding the above part of the evidence.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the O-Energy did not have the ability to supply oil of the tax invoice of this case. As long as the O-Energy did not have the capacity to supply oil of the tax invoice of this case, the person who supplied it to the plaintiff shall be deemed to be a third party, not O-Energy. The tax invoice of this case constitutes a tax invoice stating that the supplier supplied oil by the third party was false as O-Energy, which is different from the fact under Article 17 (2) 1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

(2) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault or not

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the 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 provided with the tax invoice was not negligent in not aware of the fact that he/she was unaware of the said name, the person who asserted the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6 and 12, the plaintiff confirmed the O Energy's business registration certificate, petroleum retail business registration certificate, etc. while supplying oil from the O Energy, and received O Energy-issuance's tax invoice, shipment slip, and transaction specifications, etc., and the plaintiff transferred the full amount of oil price to the O Energy bank system immediately after the plaintiff was supplied with oil. On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence can be confirmed by the evidence, i.e., the shipment slip issued and delivered at the time of supply of oil are transacted through normal distribution channels. The plaintiff requested or did not receive it. The plaintiff was difficult to view that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff was not aware of the orderer and arrival point, OO energy, Mau, Y, and Y on the oil release slip which was partially reproduced and stored by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the plaintiff was not negligent in purchasing the above O Energy-issuance density or other forms of the plaintiff's purchase of the oil, etc.

3. Conclusion

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