Cho High Court Decision 2010Du3027 ( October 15, 2011)

Since the entry was omitted and did not verify even if it was shipped, it cannot be recognized as good faith or negligence.

In the bill of shipment issued at the oil reservoir, the oil station in receipt of a different shipment slips from its form and entries is suspected of being the actual counterpart of the transaction, and there is negligence in the absence of an investigation, even though it is necessary to investigate it.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Guhap1266 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax

XX Kim

The Director of the Pacific District Office

November 2, 2011

November 16, 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 7,630,720 on June 7, 2010 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 7, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From August 1, 2008, the Plaintiff is running the oil sales business with the trade name of Macheon-dong 40-11, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Macheon-dong 40-11.

B. The Plaintiff received each tax invoice of KRW 24,036,364 of the supply price on August 31, 2009, which was in the second taxable period of value-added tax in 2009 from ○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”) (hereinafter “instant tax invoice”) and filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount, on October 31, 2009.

C. On June 7, 2010, the Defendant issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff without a real transaction, and the instant tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff from ○○ Paint was corrected and notified (hereinafter “instant disposition”) of value-added tax amounting to KRW 7,630,720 for the second period (including additional tax) in 2009 on the ground that it is a tax invoice different from the fact.

D. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 30, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the disposition on March 15, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, 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 ○○ Pon, and received the instant tax invoice, and thus, cannot be deemed as constituting a false tax invoice. Even if the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, the Plaintiff did so after confirming the business registration certificate, petroleum selling business registration certificate, corporate passbook, etc. of ○ Ponro, and, at the time of the transaction, received the tax invoice, the statement of transaction, and the shipment slip, and took all measures to confirm whether the oil was actually supplied to ○ Pon, such as remitting the amount to the corporate passbook, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff constitutes a bona fide transaction party, and thus, the instant disposition by the Defendant on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Details of accusation on data from ○○ Pestro

A) On January 8, 2009, 000-1, the 00000-1 303 business places consisting of petroleum wholesalers operating in the 500-1 east-gu, Busan Metropolitan City. In addition, the following facts were confirmed as a result of the regional tax office’s investigation into the 000 20 20 20 2.

(1) Even in the case of an oil wholesaler, the oil storage facility and oil transport vehicle were not owned at all, and the place of business did not keep the account books of oil transaction or the data on the driver, etc.

(2) The issuance pre-issuance slip was entirely inconsistent with the details of the shipment return sent by the general gas stations that traded with ○○ Pont on the ○ Pont submitted by transaction documents.

(3) It was confirmed that all of the 【○○○ Pont Co., Ltd., △△△△, △△△△, and △△ Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Pont”) were the so-called data that falsely issued a tax invoice without real transactions.

(4) The oil price that was transferred from the general gas stations to ○○ Puint was immediately transferred to the data processor, and the total amount of the oil price was fully withdrawn in cash.

B) On the basis of the above facts, the director of the Central District Tax Office confirmed that ○○ Paint was the data from which the tax invoice was issued and received falsely without any real transaction, and accused KimA, an operator of ○ Paint and ○ Paint, on the grounds of the suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, on January 1, 2009 and November 2, 2010, considering that all sales and purchase transactions were processed transactions from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 201, and filed a complaint against the prosecutor, who is the operator of ○ Paint and ○ Paint, on the grounds of the suspicion of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, the detailed

[The following table omitted]

2) Details, etc. of transactions between the Plaintiff and ○○ Paint

A) During the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice issued as ○○ Paint and the shipment slip (which is written as '○ Paint'; hereinafter referred to as 'the shipment slip' in this case) and transaction statement from August 8, 2009, and transferred the oil price to ○ Paint account after receiving the oil.

B) However, unlike the contents indicated in the instant shipment slip, the Plaintiff was supplied with oil released from the Sungnam Oil reservoir operated by dopco without going through the ○○ Pcp (dopco). Moreover, the details of oil shipment by each oil reservoir that received from 4 major oil refineries appear to be that the above oil supplier, which was released from Sungnam Oil station, was a AAB oil station and BB oil station operated by the Plaintiff.

C) Although the shipment slips of this case contain the date of shipment (the date of August 8, 2009, October 17, 2009), transportation equipment number (the Gyeonggi-do 93 000, 92 0000, 000), transaction name (the gas station), the place of destination (the place of destination), the name of destination (the oil station), the approved quantity and the conversion quantity (20,00 liters), temperature (10%) 10%) the carriers (MM, the air carrier), etc. However, the weight and density, weight, card number, tank number, the shipping column are the air space.

(D) The plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate and the registration certificate for petroleum selling business from 00 PPC in trading with 00 PPP, and the petroleum selling business registration certificate includes the number of storage facilities as '9 period', 'the fact that there is no dispute', 'A', 2 through 4, 7 through 9, 3 through 7 (including paper numbers), 'A', 'A', 'A', witness E's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

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

A) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the fact is that the ownership of the income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and if there is another person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable to pay taxes in accordance with the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes stipulating that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to cases where the necessary entries in the tax invoice are inconsistent with those in which the person to whom the goods or service is actually supplied or supplied, and the price and time of the transaction, regardless of the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or service (see, e

B) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the health stand, the evidence as seen earlier, and the entire purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the ○○ Pak-ro, revealed that the tax invoice was issued and received falsely during the period from January 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, and the operator of the 00 Pak-ro and KimA-ro was accused of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; ② the Plaintiff purchased oil from the 00 Pak-ro during the above period, while the Plaintiff was actually supplied with the tax invoice, the Plaintiff did not go through the ○○ Pak-ro, which was actually supplied by the dopco, and the Plaintiff did not actually possess the tax invoice to the 3rd Pak-ro, not the Plaintiff’s purchase of the 4th PP-ro, but the Plaintiff’s purchase of the 3rd PP-ro oil storage facilities. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s content of the instant tax invoice constituted the 9th PY-out oil storage facilities.

2) Whether the Plaintiff constitutes 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 they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not aware of the fact that they were not responsible for the deduction or refund of the input tax amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002). Furthermore, in the event that the actual supplier was in view of the process of issuing and delivering the tax invoice, the price of the goods or services supplied, the specific route and process of the supply of the goods or services, the recipient was not aware of the fact that the recipient was not aware of the fact that the supplier was not aware of the fact of the name of the actual supplier.

나) 위 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 원고는 ○○페트로로부터 2회에 걸쳐 유류를 공급받기로 하면서 ○○페트로 발행의 이 사건 세금계산서, 출하전표, 거래명세서를 각 교부받은 사실, 원고가 유류를 공급받은 직후에 바로 ○○페트로의 법인 계좌로 유류대금을 전액 이체한 사실, 원고는 ○○페트로와 거래하면서 ○○페트로로부터 사업자등록증과 석유판매업등록증 등을 확인한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같으나, 위 인정사실만으로는 원고가 ○○페트로로부터 유류를 매입하면서 ○○페트로가 자료상인 사실을 알지 못하였고 알지 못한 데에 과실이 없다는 점을 인정하기에는 부족하고, 달리 이를 정할 증거가 없다. 오히려 앞서 인정한 사실관계에 앞서 든 증거들 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 원고의 남편 이YY는 1981. 에스오일에 입사하여 1991. 퇴사한 후 현재까지 주유소를 운영하고 있고 원고 역시 2008. 8. 1.부터 1년 넘게 주유소를 운영하여 왔음에 비추어 보면 원고 및 이YY는 그 동안의 경험을 통해 유류 공급의 정상적인 구조와 유통경로, 업계의 일반적인 거래형태나 방식 및 유류업계에 널리 퍼진 자료상 거래의 실태와 위험성에 관하여 충분히 알고 있었을 것으로 추단되는 점, ② 또한 원고는 ○○페트로와 거래한 적이 없는 반면에 ○○페트로는 유류저장시설 및 유류수송차량 등 유류도매를 위한 물적 설비를 전혀 갖추지 않고 있었음에도 원고는 ○○페트로의 사업장 소재지나 사업시설 등을 한 번도 확인하지 않은 채 ○○페트로와 사이에 유류거래를 시작한 점(이에 대하여 원고는 남편인 이YY의 옛 직장 동료이자 ○○페트로의 직원이었던 유EE의 부탁으로 유EE을 믿고 ○○페트로의 사업자등록증 및 석유판매업등록증 등을 확인하였기 때문에 ○○페트로가 실제 유류를 공급하는 것으로 믿을 수밖에 없었다는 취지로 주장 하고 있고, 유EE도 이 법정에 증인으로 출석하여 '본인은 당시 ○○페트로가 정상적으로 유류를 공급하고 있는 것으로 알고 원고에게 유류매입 부탁을 하였기 때문에 원고 역시 ○○페트로가 자료상인 줄 전혀 알 수 없었다'는 취지로 원고 주장에 부합하는 증언을 하였으나, ○○페트로는 대표자 김AA을 제외하고 직원이 4명에 불과한데다가 유류저장시설 및 유류수송차량 등 유류도매를 위한 물적 설비가 전혀 존재하지 않았으며 유EE이 원고에게 유류 매입을 부탁할 당시에 이미 수백억 원 대의 허위의 매출ㆍ매입계산서를 발행ㆍ수취한 상태에 있었음을 감안해 보면, 유EE은 당시 자신이 근무하던 회사인 ○○페트로가 자료상임을 충분히 알고 있던 상황에서 평소 친분이 있던 원고에게 저가로 유류를 공급하는 조건으로 위와 같은 유류거래를 제의하였을 것으로 보는 것이 경험칙에 더 부합하므로, 유EE의 이 부분 증언은 그대로 믿기 어렵다), ③ 더욱이 이 사건 출하전표에는 ○○페트로에서 유류가 출하된 것으로 기재되어 있었음에도 ○○페트로를 통하지 아니하고 성남저유소에서 출고된 유류를 공급받은 데다가 출고된 위 유류의 납품처도 원고가 운영하는 XX주유소가 아닌 AA주유소 및 BB주유소로 확인되는 등 공급 경로도 매우 비정상적인 점, ④ 뿐만 아니라 저유소는 유류를 출하하면서 '출하일시', '출하지', '도착지' 등이 기재된 저유소 발행 출하전표 4매를 발행하여 2매는 보관하고 나머지 2매를 유류를 운송하는 기사에게 주어 도착지 회사의 확인을 받아 제출하도록 하고 이에 따라 운송비를 지급하므로 유류를 수령한 주유소 등은 운송 기사가 건네주는 출하전표에 기재된 '출하일시'와 '출하장소'에 근거하여 출하장소부터 도착지까지 예상 운송소요시간과 실제 운송소요시간을 비교하는 등의 방법으로 유류의 정품 여부를 확인할 수 있고, 유류제품의 경우 온도와 비중에 따라 그 부피가 달라져 정상적으로 발행된 출하전표에는 발행시간(초단위까지), 온도 및 비중이 정확하게 기재되어 있어야 할 뿐만 아니라, 그 밖에 저유원, 운반원, 확인자, 출하자의 서명, 탱크번호도 정확하게 기재되어 있어야 함에도, 원고가 ○○페트로로부터 수취한 출하전표에는 출하시간, 비중, 저유원, 출하자의 서명, 탱크번호 등이 기재되어 있지 않는 등 정상적으로 저유소에서 발행된 출하전표와는 그 양식 및 기재사항이 상이하였고 그럼에도 원고는 ○○페트로가 실제 공급자가 맞는지 여부에 대하여 확인을 전혀 하지 않은 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고는 거래의 실제 상대방이 ○○페트로가 아님을 알고 있었거나 또는 위 거래의 실질적인 상대방이 누구인지에 대하여 의심을 품고 이를 조사할 필요성이 있었음에도 이를 조사하지 않은 과실이 있다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장 역시 이유 없다.

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.