early 2010 prior 0983 ( October 13, 2010)

Oil retailers who have been issued a false tax invoice different from the facts stated in the false information by the supplier.

A business operator operating a gas station, who received a false tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier entered the false name, and was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not negligent. Thus, the disposition imposing the input tax without deducting the input tax amount is legitimate.

2010Guhap4065 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Park AA

○ Head of tax office

December 1, 2010

January 19, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 34,33,570 on September 1, 2009 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. From December 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was operating a gas station in the name of “○○○○○○-dong 243-5” from “○○○○○○-dong 243-5,” and in the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, the Plaintiff received seven copies of the tax invoice of KRW 211,818,18,182 (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and filed a return and paid the value-added tax by deducting the amount of the said input tax from the output tax amount after deducting the amount of the said input tax from the value-added tax amount.

B. From July 7, 2008 to September 16, 2008, the head of the Gangseo-gu Tax Office determined the energy from △△△△ in the data and notified the Defendant of the taxation data. The Defendant considered the instant tax invoice that the Plaintiff received from △△△ Energy as a tax invoice different from the fact and accordingly deducted the input tax amount of value-added tax from the Plaintiff on September 1, 2009, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of KRW 34,33,570 for value-added tax (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 15, 2010 on November 24, 2009, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 17, 2009.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received a copy of the business registration certificate and a copy of the petroleum sales registration certificate prior to the transaction with the energy in △△△ in order to verify whether the Plaintiff is a normal customer. In doing oil transaction, the Plaintiff received the shipment slips and the statement of transaction and remitted the oil price to the deposit account in △△ Energy. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s denial of the input tax deduction related to the instant tax invoice is illegal, since it constitutes a bona fide trader who was not negligent in

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Facts recognized

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account each evidence, Gap evidence No. 1 through No. 4, each evidence No. 3 to No. 5 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleadings, which were either in dispute between the parties or in dispute.

(1) The process of determining the data of the energy of △△△

(A) On July 1, 2006, the energy of △△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City was first established with the name of the AA and the name of the AA Energy Co., Ltd. was transferred to the BB on January 28, 2008, and the trade name was changed to the energy of △△ in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. For the registration of the petroleum selling business, the 13,00 KL - 13,00 KL - 642 corporation of △△△△△△△△△ in △△△△△△, 600 and 3 transportation vehicles (60KL - Incheon, Incheon, 000, Incheon, 000) were leased, but it was not used once.

(나) ☆☆에너지 명의의 세금계산서는 ☆☆에너지를 실제로 운영한 유CC이 직원 양DD에게 업체, 수량, 단가 등의 자료를 제시하여 작성하도록 하거나, 속칭 딜러들이 ☆☆에너지로 전화로 주유소 명칭, 유종, 수량, 차량번호, 금액, 기사이름, 출하지를 불러주면 그 내용에 따라 작성된 것이고, 거래대금은 ☆☆에너지 명의의 통장에 입금되면 그 즉시 ▲▲에너지 명의의 통장에 세금계산서 발행 수수료를 차감한 후 송금하였다.

(C) As a result of the tax investigation conducted on September 9, 2008 for the first taxable period, the head of Gangseo-gu Tax Office decided that the total amount of 96,92,000,000 won in total amount of 99.9% in total amount of 99.9% in total amount of 96,890,601,297 won in total amount of 99.9% in total amount of 99.9% in total amount of 96,827,99,970 won in total amount of 96,827,99,970 won in total amount of 99.9% in total amount of 9,000 won in total amount of 9.9% in total amount of 9.9% in total amount of 9

(2) The details of the transaction between the Plaintiff and △△ Energy

(A) On February 2008, the Plaintiff was offered a proposal to supply oil at a low unit price from the UE, a member of the business of the energy in △△△△△ in order to supply oil to the △△△ in advance, not the distance prior to the prior transaction, but the transaction began after receiving the registration certificate and the registration certificate of the △△△ in order to supply oil. The oil order was made in the way of depositing oil into the deposit account in the name of the energy in △△△ in the name of the △△△ in order to be supplied with oil to the EE, after being supplied with the oil to the EE. In the process, there was no direct order or written inquiry to the △△△ in order to directly place

(B) After commencing a transaction with the energy in Do-won, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 233,00,000 as the oil price to the deposit account in the name of the energy in Do-won in Seoul Special Metropolitan City between March 10, 2008 and May 14, 2008. This was the largest oil purchase during the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008.

(C) The Plaintiff’s shipment slips received from the △△△ Energy was made in the same manner as seen earlier, without the signature of the oil source or the transportation source, and the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff on each of the corresponding dates indicated in the shipment slips, as a result of the Plaintiff’s inquiry into the terminal corporation of △△△△△SP tank indicated in the shipment slip. Furthermore, the Plaintiff sent the oil to the Plaintiff after receiving the shipment slips from the oil carrier at the time of being supplied with the oil. In addition, the Plaintiff received the shipment slips marked by the oil carrier at the time of being supplied with the oil, and after receiving the shipment slips and the tax invoice in the name of the △△△△ Energy from the energy of

D. Determination

(1) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is the case where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services, but with the actual supplier of the goods or services, the actual supplier of the goods or services, and the price and timing of the goods or services. As seen earlier, the energy in △△△△ in question filed a complaint with the tax authorities. The fact that no actual distribution was made by the tax authorities, and the fact that no oil storage facilities or transportation vehicles in the △△ in the △△△△ in relation to the energy reported at the time of petroleum business registration did not have been entirely used, each oil listed in the shipment slip was not shipped out to the Plaintiff on the corresponding date, and the fact that no oil was shipped out to the Plaintiff, and the fact that the actual purchaser of the oil in this case was purchased from another third party, which is not the △△ in relation to the issuance of the shipment slip.

(2) Furthermore, as to whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the disguised fact in the name of the instant tax invoice, and whether there was no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the disguised fact in the name of the tax invoice, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, and that the supplier was not aware of the disguised fact in the name of the tax invoice, the person who claims the input tax amount deduction or refund must prove that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Accordingly, it is insufficient to acknowledge the input tax amount only by the entries in the evidence No. 5 or No. 8 (including each number), and there is no other

(3) Rather, the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition: (i) the shipment slips issued in the oil reservoir generally are issued in four copies; (ii) one copy among the remaining two pages, in which the seller keeps a signature and seal, and one copy is kept by the consignee; (iii) the Plaintiff stated that the shipment slips issued are shipped directly from the energy of △△△, and there is no signature of oil sources or carrier; (ii) the instant transaction with the Plaintiff and △△△ Energy was the largest of the oil prices purchased during the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008; and (iii) the Plaintiff did not know that there was a change between the Plaintiff and the business owner on January 28, 2008; and (iv) it was difficult for the Plaintiff to find that the Plaintiff did not know that there was no normal transaction of the Plaintiff in the name of △△△△△△△△△, but it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff did not know that there was a trade in the name of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s phone number.

(4) Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff attached the fact that the Plaintiff was a bona fide and negligent supplier. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount equivalent to the instant tax invoice is lawful.

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.