early 2011 Heavy0198 ( October 21, 2011)

If a normal shipment slip is not received, it shall not be deemed to be a good faith or negligence.

The Plaintiff’s shipment slips received from the buyer are written only on the date of shipment, unlike the normal shipment slips, and the shipment time is not written, and the trade name of the buyer who is not the oil reservoir is written in the shipment column, and the temperature column is an official column, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is a bona fide and without fault.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap2021 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Ma XX

Head of the High Tax Office

September 6, 2011

October 11, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 17,49,350 imposed on the Plaintiff on July 9, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 4, 2002, the Plaintiff is running the oil sales business, etc. with the trade name of the wall 00 to the wall 00 of Goyang-si.

B. In 209, the Plaintiff received five copies of the tax invoice (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) equivalent to the total value of KRW 103,345,000 from the ○○○O (hereinafter “○○○O”) during the first taxable period of the value-added tax, and filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount.

C. On July 9, 2010, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction pursuant to each of the above tax invoices on the ground that the Plaintiff’s ○○ Date falls under the data that issued sales and purchase tax invoices without a real transaction. The instant tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff from the date of ○○O was also false, and issued the instant disposition that issued the Plaintiff’s correction and notification of KRW 17,49,350 for value-added tax for the first year of 2009.

D. The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an objection on September 14, 2010, and filed an appeal on December 24, 2010, and filed the instant lawsuit upon receipt of a decision of dismissal in each of the above procedures.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7, 9, 11, Eul 1, 2 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the actual oil from the date of ○○O and received the instant tax invoice, and thus, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice. In addition, the Plaintiff did not know that the date of ○○O was a disguised business operator and did not know the fact. Therefore, 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

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact is that the necessary entries of the tax invoice refer to cases where the contents of the requisite entries of the tax invoice are inconsistent with those of the actual supplier or supplier of the goods or service, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996).

In full view of the purport of the pleadings as a whole, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including each number in the case of additional numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, 008 ○00 and 19.6% of total sales during the 2008 and the 2009 1st taxable period , and 9.5% of total purchase 99.5% of so-called "processing transactions that do not involve real transactions," ○0-6, 000-6, 000, 00, 000, 000. The above company's registration certificate was held 19 oil storage facilities, but the above company actually did not hold the oil storage facilities, such as oil reservoir. According to the above facts, the plaintiffs' actual purchase place of oil under the tax invoice of this case shall be deemed to be a third party, not 00, but 000, and therefore, the tax invoice of this case constitutes a false transaction or a fictitious transaction.

2) Whether the Plaintiff is bona fide 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 the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the said name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

Therefore, according to each entry of Gap 3 through 10 card (including each number if there is a serial number), the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case from the date of 000 and remitted the amount stated in the above tax invoice to the 0000 days. However, the above recognition alone does not lead to the plaintiff's failure to know the fact that the plaintiff was the 0000 days' name, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not know the whole purport of arguments. Rather, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not receive the bill from the date of shipment, "the date of shipment", "the date of shipment", "the date of arrival", and "the date of arrival", "the date of shipment", "the date of shipment", "the date of shipment", "the date of shipment", "the date of shipment", "the date of shipment", and most of the remaining two kinds of oil shall be submitted to the article for the destination, so it is not reasonable that the plaintiff did not receive the bill from the place of shipment to the destination."

3. Conclusion

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