Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice

It is reasonable to deem that the instant tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff is a document that issued a tax invoice without real transaction, and that it is a false tax invoice by the supplier, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a party to good faith or negligence.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

2014Guhap5909 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax

Gangwon ○

○ Head of tax office

May 6, 2015

June 10, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 174,201,650, value-added tax of KRW 277,50,50, KRW 277,50, KRW 50, and value-added tax of KRW 277,509, KRW 170, and value-added tax of KRW 37,717,430, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on October 21, 2013 (which appears to be written in the written complaint on October 21, 2013).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From July 1, 2001, the Plaintiff is a business operator who runs oil retail business with the trade name called ○○○○○ 557-23 to *** a gas station.

B. The Plaintiff received from the ○○ Commercial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Commercial”) a tax invoice of KRW 848,145,00 for the total value of the first period supply in 2009, 4 copies of the tax invoice of KRW 1,388,032,00 for the total value of the second period supply in 2009, 6 copies of the tax invoice of KRW 1,388,032,00 for the total value of the first period supply in 209, 193,920,000 for the total value of supply in 193,920,000 for the first period (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”), and filed a value-added

C. On October 10, 2013, the director of the Central Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation of tax offense against the Plaintiff; (b) concluded that the instant tax invoice was false; and (c) notified the Defendant on September 2013, that the instant tax invoice was not deducted from the output tax amount; and (d) notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the amount of value-added tax for the first period portion of KRW 174,201,650, value-added tax for the second period of 2009, value-added tax for the second period of 2009, value-added tax for KRW 277,509,170, value-added tax for the first period of 209, and value-added tax for the first period of 2010 for KRW 37,717,430 (including additional tax).

D. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection with the Tax Tribunal on December 20, 2013.

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's claim on April 15, 2014.

Facts that there has been no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil from ○○ Company, and thus, the instant tax invoice was issued.

No tax invoice shall be deemed to be a false tax invoice.

2) Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff

The plaintiff was not aware of such facts and was negligent in not knowing such facts.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

A) Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) and Article 17(2)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provide that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. It means that an entry of a tax invoice is different from the fact, and if a person who actually belongs to another person exists, the person to whom the tax invoice actually belongs shall be liable to pay taxes, in light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides that where the necessary entry of a tax invoice does not coincide with the actual subject, value, and timing of the supply of goods or services, notwithstanding the formal entry of a transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1667, Dec. 16, 196).

B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the fact that ○○○ and its representative filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office by deeming ○○○○ and its representative as material on the basis of the above content is acknowledged. The fact that ○○○○ and its representative filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office by deeming ○○○○ and its representative as material on the basis of the above content can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that ○○ Company’s data issued a tax invoice without real transaction, and that the instant tax invoice issued by ○○ Company is a tax invoice different from the fact that the supplier entered it in a false manner. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion contrary

2) Whether the Plaintiff is a party to good faith and negligence

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice are unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and the supplier cannot deduct or refund the relevant input tax amount unless there is any negligence on the part of the supplier, and the person claiming for the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact of the above name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 9 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the tax invoice of this case was a false tax invoice, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 5 revealed the overall purport of the pleadings and the following circumstances. i.e.,, the Plaintiff operated a gas station from around July 1, 2001. The Plaintiff appears to have been sufficiently aware of the normal structure and distribution route of the supply of oil, the general type and method of transaction in the industry, and the actual situation of transactions in material spread to the oil industry through experience during the period. ii) The Plaintiff was supplied with oil at a price below 20 to 30 won per liter than the price supplied by ○○ commercial company, and the Plaintiff did not state the time of shipment or temperature and density different from the shipment slip normally issued by ○○ commercial company. Thus, even though there was sufficient circumstance to suspect that ○○ commercial company was not an actual supplier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was not negligent in investigating the Plaintiff’s actual supplier or the other party’s actual efforts to supply the oil due to the location of ○○ commercial company’s oil storage facilities.

3. Conclusion

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