Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap28561 (O1, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do1260 (Law No. 1106.01)

It is reasonable to see that a false transaction partner is a tax invoice different from the facts of disguised transaction, and the plaintiff's good faith or negligence cannot be recognized.

(1) In light of the fact that the shipment slips issued by the non-party company were supplied by the non-party company with oil to the extent of 10 won per liter, etc., the plaintiff's good faith or negligence cannot be acknowledged in light of the fact that the non-party company supplied the oil to the extent of 10 won per liter.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu3899 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AA

1.The Director of the Seodaemun Tax Office 2.Dongmun Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap28561 decided January 11, 2012

July 5, 2013

August 30, 2013

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The imposition of the first instance value-added tax for the Plaintiff on January 3, 201 by the head of Seodaemun Tax Office and the second instance value-added tax for the year 2009 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked. The imposition of the second instance value-added tax for the Plaintiff and the second instance value-added tax for the second instance value-added tax for the year 2009 on November 15, 2012 shall be revoked by the head of Seodaemun Tax Office, while the head of the second instance tax for the second instance value-added tax for the second instance value-added tax for the year 2009 on November 9, 2013.

The reason for this decision is that the Plaintiff operated the gas station from August 20, 193 to August 1993, since the Plaintiff was a person who operated the gas station from August 20, 1993, and the Plaintiff appears to have run the gas station from January 30, 2009 pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (amended by Act No. 9370 of Jan. 30, 2009), etc., and the Plaintiff appears to have known that the horizontal transaction between agencies until April 30, 209 was prohibited as an act of undermining distribution order, but it appears that the Plaintiff purchased oil from BB, a general agent, as well as adding "the purchase of oil from BB."

Then, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.