Suwon District Court 2010Gudan11772 ( October 30, 2011)

National Tax Service Review Division 2010-0015 (28 May 2010)

An operator of a gas station who has been issued a tax invoice stating different facts by the supplier;

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance), a business operator operating a gas station who has received a tax invoice stating different facts from the fact, and as a result of negligence on the part of failing to know such facts, the disposition on which the value-added tax is imposed is legitimate.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu15178 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

XX Co., Ltd

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap11772 Decided March 30, 2011

November 23, 2011

January 11, 2012

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2008 against the plaintiff's head office on November 2, 2009, the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2008, the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2008, and the imposition of KRW 10,014,630 for the first term of 208 against the plaintiff's branch office shall be revoked.

This court's decision is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that even if the instant tax invoice is tax invoice different from the fact, the Plaintiff did not know the nominal name and did not know the fact. However, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) as the Plaintiff demanded to lower the supply unit price of oil in XX, he could have been supplied with O energy directly from the company; (b) he was provided with O energy; and (c) from April 2008 to August 2008, she did so with O energy; (d) the Plaintiff did not introduce OB to introduce O energy to the Plaintiff for a short period of time; (e) the Plaintiff did not reasonably explain the circumstances leading up to the resumption of transactions with OB; and (e) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been able to have known that OB did not have any duty of care to the Plaintiff in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any duty of care to the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff supplied 5 OB oil to the Plaintiff, i., e., the Plaintiff’s 1).

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.