early 2009 Jeon3413 ( December 30, 2009)

Whether a processed tax invoice related to oil purchase has been received;

In full view of the fact that the representative of the client was convicted of having been accused of the material, that the customer did not use oil storage facilities or transport vehicles at all, and that the actual purchaser of the oil was purchased from a third party when taking into account the circumstances such as the issuance of this ticket.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 392,39,180 against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 u3000

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Gap evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 3 (including each number), and the whole purport of arguments.

A. From December 30, 2007 to June 15, 2008, the Plaintiff operated a gas station under the name of "CC gas station" in the name of "AA Eup BB BB Ri 85-3". In the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, the Plaintiff received 45 tax invoices of KRW 1,998,781,000 in total from 1,99,781,000 in supply price from "D Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D Energy") and reported and paid the value-added tax by deducting the above input tax amount from the output tax amount.

B. On January 2009, the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted each tax investigation on the EE Energy on or around September 2008, the Central District Tax Office determined DD Energy and EE Energy as data that issued false tax invoices without real transactions, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff from March 10, 2009 to March 30, 2009, and deemed the instant tax invoice received from DD Energy and EE Energy as a false tax invoice, and thus, deducted the input tax amount of value-added tax from the Plaintiff on June 5, 2009, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff on June 5, 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 4, 2009, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 30, 2009.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s supply of oil through normal transactions from DD energy and EE energy, and even if the Plaintiff supplied oil to the Plaintiff under the false name of DD energy and EE energy, the Plaintiff is a bona fide trading party who was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name, and thus, the Defendant’s rejection of the input tax deduction related to the instant tax invoice is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Facts recognized

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence, Gap evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 17, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 4 and Eul evidence No. 6 (including each number), witness GG, and Lee H's testimony and the whole purport of each of the testimony and arguments, which are not disputed between the parties, or which were incurred by the parties.

(1) The process of confirmation of the data on DNA energy

(A) On January 28, 2008, in the form of the representative director, the non-party LJ acquired uf85e uf85 KKK and changed its trade name into DD Energy. At the time DD Energy was reported to have leased storage facilities (13,00KL) and three oil transport vehicles (60KL, Incheon 86ia693, Incheon 86ia694, Incheon 8686955) from OOOOOOO, in order to secure storage facilities and transport vehicles necessary for the registration of petroleum selling business, but it was not used once.

(나) DD에너지 명의의 세금계산서, 출하전표 등은 DD에너지를 실제로 운영한 유GG이 직원 양PP에게 업체, 수량, 단가 등의 자료를 제시하여 작성하도록 하거나, 영업 딜러들이 DD에너지로 전화로 주유소 명칭, 유종, 수량, 차량번호, 금액, 기사이름, 출하지를 불러주면 그 내용에 따라 작성된 것이었고, 거래대금은 DD에너지 명의의 통장에 입금되면 그 즉시 세금계산서 발행 수수료만을 차감한 후 QQ에너지 명의의 계좌에 송금하였다.

(C) As a result of the tax investigation conducted from July 7, 2008 to September 16, 2008 on the first taxable period of the value-added tax in 2008, the head of the Gangseo District Tax Office decided that the total amount of DNA energy reported was KRW 99.9% of the total amount of KRW 99.9% of KRW 96,92,00,000 and the total amount of KRW 96,890,601,297 equivalent to approximately KRW 99.9% of KRW 99.9% of the total amount of purchase declaration and KRW 96,827,99,970 of KRW 99.9% of the total amount of KRW 29.9% of the total amount of purchase declaration were the processing transaction not involving each real transaction and filed a complaint with the prosecutor on September 9, 2008.

(라) 또한 대전지방국세청장은 주식회사 QQ에너지 등 4개 업체에 대한 자료상 조사를 실시한 결과, 석유류 자료상들은 매출만 발생시키고 폐업하는 최초자료상, 최초 자료상으로부터 세금계산서를 수취하여 하부자료상에게 세금계산서를 교부하는 중간자료상, 무자료 불법석유류 판매업자를 대신하여 주유소 등에 세금계산서를 교부하는 하부 자료상의 구조를 만들어 허위의 매출 및 매입 세금계산서를 수수하였는데, DD에너지와 EE에너지는 하부자료상으로 중간자료상인 RR에너지나 QQ에너지로부터 허위의 세금계산서를 수취한 다음 주유소 등에 허위의 세금계산서를 교부하는 역할을 담당하였다고 판단하여 DD에너지와 EE에너지를 검찰에 고발하였다.

(마) 위와 같은 과세당국의 형사고발 조치에 따라서 이루어진 검찰의 기소와 관련하여 2009. 6. 18. 대전지방법원 천안지원은 DD에너지의 실제 운영자인 유GG에 대하여 QQ에너지 등의 회사와 재화 또는 용역의 거래가 없음에도 이들로부터 허위 세금계산서를 교부받거나 교부하였다는 범죄사실로 징역 2년에 집행유예 3년의 유죄판결을 선고하였고, 그 무렵 위 판결은 확정되었다.

(2) The process of confirmation of data on EE energy

(A) The EE Energy was established on July 25, 2007. At the time of the application for the registration of the business, the EE Energy submitted an oil tank lease agreement of 516-5,000 liter 50,000 liter 4 and 100,000 liter at the time of the application for the registration of the business, but the said oil tank was not used as a snow product.

(B) The tax invoice in the name of EE Energy and the shipment slips were prepared by KimV, who was in charge of accounting work under the direction of KimU, an actual agent of EE energy, and the shipment slips prepared as above were not printed with the unique trade name of oil refining company, and were written in a lump sum, so the temperature and proportion were equally stated.

(C) As a result of the tax investigation conducted from September 18, 2008 to December 26, 2008, with respect to the 119,519,519,000,000 won in total sales of EE energy and approximately KRW 112,115,000 in total sales amount equivalent to approximately 93.81% in total sales amount of KRW 119,394,000 in total sales amount of KRW 119,394,00,000 in total sales amount of KRW 93.17% in total sales amount of KRW 119,394,00 in total sales amount of KRW 115,00 in total sales amount of KRW 93.17% in total sales amount of KRW 245,00,000 in total sales amount of KRW 119,395,00 in total sales amount

(3) The details of transactions between the Plaintiff, DD Energy and EE Energy, etc.

(A) On January 208, 2008, the Plaintiff heard that he would supply oil to the low-value of HaH and began transactions with E Energy, and upon the introduction of HaH, the Plaintiff came to enter into transactions with D Energy after being aware of the HaH. The Plaintiff ordered Y or HaH to sell oil by telephone and deposited the oil price into the accounts of D Energy and EE Energy. On the day of the order or following day, the Plaintiff received the tax invoice, the statement of transaction, the shipment slip, etc. at the end of the month after receiving the oil by mail.

(B) On the end of each month, the Plaintiff received tax invoices, specifications of transactions, shipment slips, etc. from DD Energy and EE Energy at the end of each month, and subsequently returned the shipment slips issued by the oil company from the oil drivers of the tank Crori at the request of the UG and this H, to the UG and this H.

(C) From January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a return on total input tax amount of KRW 1,816,051,90,00 in total among the supply values. Of these, DD Energy accounts for approximately 835,454,54, and EE Energy accounts for approximately 318,581,819, and the total supply value between April 1, 2008 and June 30, 2008 was reported as KRW 1,919,405,523 in total. Among them, DD Energy accounts for approximately 58% in total as KRW 1,63,327,273.

(D) On the other hand, 70 pages 70 of the shipping slips in the name of D Energy, 12 marks in the name of EE Energy, which the Plaintiff received, are not normally issued at oil reservoir, but were falsely prepared and delivered from D Energy and EE Energy. The temperature was 10.5 and density was 828.5 regardless of the date, and the time of publication was not indicated.

D. Determination

(1) The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is the case where the contents of the requisite entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the actual supplier of the goods or services, or the price, time, etc. of the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries of the contract made between the parties to the goods or services. As seen earlier, D Energy and EE Energy have never been distributed, which was accused by the tax authorities, and DE Energy has been finally affirmed on the ground that the actual operator of the business, delivered a false tax invoice, and DE Energy has not been used at all of the DD Energy and EE Energy oil oil refining facilities or transportation vehicles reported at the time of the registration of the petroleum business, and the actual purchase place of the oil of this case was purchased from any third party, not DD Energy and EE Energy, and ultimately, it constitutes a false tax invoice by the supplier.

(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 is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the nominal 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 nominal fact in the name of the tax invoice, the person claiming the input tax deduction or refund must prove that the purchaser was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 11 through 13, A, 15, A, 16, A, 19, and A20, each statement on the certificate No. 20 (including each number) submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge it.

(3) Rather, in light of the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition, ① the Plaintiff’s sales of oil at the oil reservoir was issued 4 pages in the normal process of oil distribution, and one copy out of two pages remaining in the Plaintiff’s storage, and one copy was signed and sealed by the consignee, and one copy was kept by the consignee. The Plaintiff appears to go out of the ordinary oil trading method, such as delivery of the normal shipping slips received from the driver to UG and HaH after obtaining a false shipping slips from DD energy and EE energy. ② The normal shipping slips issued by the Plaintiff did not clearly indicate the temperature and weight of the Plaintiff’s sales before the date of issuance. However, the Plaintiff did not know that there was a lack of proof that there was a lack of proof that there was a lack of time for the Plaintiff’s sales prior to the date of issuance, and that there was a lack of proof that the Plaintiff did not know of the fact that there was a lack of time for the Plaintiff’s sales prior to the date of issuance, and that there was no difference between the Plaintiff’s sales and 20% of the E.

(4) Therefore, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was bona fide and without fault. 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.