early 2010 Heavy3201 ( October 05, 201)

No good faith or negligence of the plaintiff may be recognized in receiving a false tax invoice.

The instant tax invoice shall be deemed to be a false tax invoice different from the fact entered by the supplier. The Plaintiff was negligent in not investigating the supplier’s knowledge or suspicion as to who is the actual counterparty of the transaction, although it was necessary to investigate the supplier’s identity.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Guhap6572 Additional detailed and revocation of disposition

CHAPTER A

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

January 17, 2013

January 31, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On July 1, 2010, the Defendant revoked each imposition (including each additional tax) of the first value-added tax in 2008, the first value-added tax in 2009, the first value-added tax in 2009, and the second value-added tax in 2009.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From September 1, 2001, the Plaintiff operated a gas station from November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff operated a gas station with the trade name called “OOdong 000 to BBB gas station” from around 15, 2007.

B. During the first and second taxable periods in 2008, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice of KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as the “tax invoice in this case”) and filed a value-added tax return by deducting the related input tax amount from the supply value of the Co., Ltd., CC Energy, DD Energy, EEM, Co., Ltd, FEMM, and GGrushion Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC Energy, DD Energy, EEM, FF , and GGrush, and collectively referred to as “CC Energy, etc.”).

C. On August 2008, from January 2008 to January 201, Seoul Regional Tax Office, the director of the tax office, and the director of the tax office Namcheon District Tax Office confirmedCC energy, etc. as data that issued false tax invoices without real transactions and filed a complaint with the Defendant.

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 2010, the Defendant, on the ground that the instant tax invoice was written differently from the fact, did not deduct the input tax amount from the output tax amount, and notified the Plaintiff of each correction and notification of the amount of KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the first year of 2008, KRW 000 of the first year value-added tax for the first year of 2009, and KRW 000 of the second year value-added tax for the second year of 2009 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On September 16, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 16, 201, but the claim was dismissed on October 5, 201.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-sured facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and evidence 2 (including natural disaster) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Plaintiff was actually supplied with oil fromCC energy, etc., and received the instant tax invoice, and the instant tax invoice is not a false tax invoice.

(2) Even if the actual supplier of the oil supplied by the Plaintiff did not haveCC energy, the Plaintiff confirmed that it was a normally registered business entity through the petroleum sales business ofCC energy, the business registration certificate, corporate passbook, the inquiry on the website of the gas station association, and the computerized inquiry by the National Tax Service through the tax agency, etc., prior to the transaction, and transferred the transaction price to the account ofCC energy, etc., and received the tax invoice by mail or letter after the transaction, and the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care as a bona fide trading party. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful and thus should be revoked

(b) Related statutes;

Paper in the Appendix

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice is false

The meaning that the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to a case where the contents of the requisite entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with the actual supplier or the supplier of the goods or services, the price and the timing of the transaction, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 196). Therefore, if the transaction partner who supplied oil to the Plaintiff is not the supplier of the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice should be deemed to be a false

In full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence stated in subparagraphs 3 through 7 and the whole purport of the pleadings, and the result of the tax investigation by the director of Central District Tax Office,CC Energy, etc. verified as a data company that issued false tax invoices without actual transactions. ② It is reasonable to deem thatCC Energy, etc. was not able to supply oil under the tax invoice in this case to the Plaintiff, and as long asCC Energy, etc. was not able to supply oil under the tax invoice in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was not CC Energy, etc., and so long as it was not able to supply oil under the tax invoice in this case, the Plaintiff should be deemed to be a third party, notCC Energy. Therefore, the tax invoice in this case is a tax invoice entered differently from the fact, which constitutes "tax invoice entered differently from the fact described in subparagraphs 1-2 of Article 17 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9268 of Dec. 26, 2008)" and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient

(2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes good faith and negligence

The actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice and that there was no negligence on the supplier’s failure to know of the above fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du26695, Mar. 29, 2012). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, the shipment slip issued and delivered when the oil was supplied is traded through normal distribution channels, and the Plaintiff did not request or receive it, and the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the fact that it was not in compliance with the formalities of the actual oil shipping, and that there was no doubt that the other party did not know of the fact that the oil shipping slip was actually supplied with the oil shipping time, and that the Plaintiff did not know of the type of the oil shipping time, etc.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, it is dismissed, and it is decided with the order.