early 2012Gu4374 ( December 17, 2012)

It is a tax invoice different from the fact that no real transaction is conducted, and it is difficult to regard it as a good

The tax invoice that the plaintiff received from BB energy for oil purchase appears to be a different tax invoice from the actual transaction; it is insufficient to find that the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the plaintiff was a false tax invoice; and that there was no negligence due to the plaintiff's failure to know, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it

2012Guhap5055 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing income tax

Park AAA

Head of the tax office

May 3, 2013

June 21, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing global income tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on August 2, 2012 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From April 14, 2006, the Plaintiff operated a gas station under the trade name called "BB gas station" from Jin-si O of Jin-si in Busan Metropolitan City from 000 to "B gas station."

B. On June 3, 2010, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) consisting of 000 won in total, and 000 won in total, and the Defendant included the supply value under the said tax invoice in the necessary expenses at the time of reporting global income tax for the year 2010 to the Defendant.

C. The director of the North Daegu District Tax Office, after conducting a tax investigation on BB energy, confirmed BB energy as data which issued a false tax invoice and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

D. Accordingly, on September 1, 2011, the Defendant decided to deduct the input tax amount for the pertinent transaction portion on the ground that the instant tax invoice delivered by the Plaintiff from BB energy was false tax invoices, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of KRW 4,33,350 in 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On December 2, 2011, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and was dismissed on June 29, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 12, and 14, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The “tax invoice different from the fact” under Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act refers to the tax invoice issued at the time of a processing transaction without actual delivery of the goods, and the Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil from BB energy and was issued with the instant tax invoice, and the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff confirmed the opposite contractual party through the order of EEEE member at the time of energy and trade, and the Plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing that the instant tax invoice was not an actual supplier, and there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(i) the findings of BB energy;

A) On March 10, 2010, BB energy established a Daegu Branch on the 000 OOdong, Daegu Northerndong on October 27, 2010. At the time of the tax investigation on October 2010, the said Daegu Branch was closed ex officio on October 27, 2010. At the time of the tax investigation on October 2010, there was no oil storage or transport vehicle in and around, and there was no oil storage or transport vehicle in and around, and the lessor had contact with BB energy, thereby deducting the monthly rent from the deposit.

BB energy has leased oil storage tanks from terminal oil stations in Daegu Dong-gu 000, and oil entry and shipment management has been carried out by the lessor, and there have been no computer facilities necessary for the preparation of shipment slips in the oil storage tank.

C) The shipment slips for BB energy preparation do not have been made out of the oil storage tank after obtaining confirmation of the oil shipment quantity from the oil storage tank, and the oil carrier received a request for delivery by telephone and delivered to the oil station by receiving a shipment slip already made out of the O-Energy staff to the oil station regardless of the volume of oil transport, or by the BB energy staff in a way that they directly deliver it to the oil station.

D) BB energy transfers the amount of money deposited by the Plaintiff et al. to ○○ and ○○ Energy Co., Ltd., Ltd. on the same date, and both the purchasing parties confirmed the tax invoice without real transactions as so-called material that is issued falsely, and there is no fact that BB energy actually purchased oil from the above purchasing parties.

E) BB energy and representative KimCCC was accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, and at present, KimCCC was subject to the suspension of prosecution, and the suspension of BB energy was subject to the suspension of witness (Tgu District Prosecutors' Office 201 type No. 4413, No. 2010 type No. 26606).

2) Transaction between the Plaintiff and BB Energy

A) The Plaintiff was supplied with petroleum products by DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as DDD), and was supplied with DD during the first period of 2010 when trading with BB energy.

B) The Plaintiff was able to purchase the BB energy through the EE, which is a business employee of the BB energy, and made a single transaction with the BB energy upon a request for a transaction several times, and did not take measures to confirm the transaction partner by directly communicating with the BB energy, and did not confirm the BB energy storage facilities, etc.

C) On the shipment date column of the shipment slip (Evidence 6) to which the Plaintiff received BB energy 20,000 L, the Plaintiff stated that the shipment date column is not marked, and that the approved column is called “on-site manager,” and that the shipper is in blank, and that the shipment price is “B Energy,” it is not known that the oil was shipped in any region.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 2's evidence 1 to 3, evidence 6, evidence 12, evidence 19, evidence 28 to 31, and evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

A) Article 17(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that input tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of the tax invoice are different from the fact, and that the entries of the tax invoice are different from the fact, and where the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, and act subject to taxation is nominal, and where there is another person to whom the tax invoice belongs, the person to whom the tax invoice belongs is liable to pay taxes, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the necessary entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person to whom the goods or services are actually supplied or supplied, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196).

B) The following circumstances revealed with respect to the instant case, i.e., (i) B energy was confirmed to be a data company that issued false tax invoices without real transactions, and (ii) BB energy and the representative director KimCCC was accused of the prosecution under the suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. (ii) BB energy is deemed to have no ability to supply oil under the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiff because it was never purchased oil and managed the entry and release. (iii) In full view of the fact that BB energy reported as the oil purchaser, ○ Energy Co., Ltd., and ○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., which reported as the oil purchaser, and ○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., which reported as the oil purchaser, all of which were accused of the fact, regardless of whether the Plaintiff actually supplied oil by the third party, and so long as the instant tax invoice is entered as BMerchant energy by the supplier, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice entered by the supplier, i.e., the supplier, etc., tax invoice differently from the output tax amount.

2) As to the plaintiff's second argument

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 in the name of the tax invoice, and the person who received the tax shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who did not know the above fact of the name of the tax invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du26695, Mar. 29, 201).

B) The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 9 are insufficient to find that the plaintiff purchased oil from BB energy, without knowing the fact that the tax invoice issued by BB energy was a false tax invoice, and there is no other evidence to find it otherwise. Rather, the following circumstances revealed by the above fact of recognition, i.e., the plaintiff opened the "OO oil station" and operated the gas station for about four years before trading with BB energy. Thus, the plaintiff did not know the normal structure and distribution route of the oil supply, and the general form or method of the oil industry, and the oil industry, and it seems that the supplier was sufficiently aware of the actual situation of the oil supply transaction and the danger, and that there is no other evidence to find that the plaintiff did not know whether the plaintiff was a supplier of the oil through the oil transaction or not, and that there is no other evidence to find that the plaintiff did not know whether the plaintiff was a supplier of the oil, and that the plaintiff did not know whether the plaintiff was a supplier of the oil, but did not know whether the plaintiff was a supplier of the oil, and that the plaintiff did not know whether there was any other reason.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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