Seocho 209west 1893 (Law No. 24, 2009)

Petroleum retailers who have been issued a tax invoice entered differently from the fact by the supplier;

As a petroleum retailer, it is not recognized that the supplier constitutes a tax invoice entered differently from the fact, and that the supplier was not aware of his/her name and was not negligent due to his/her negligence, the non-deduction of the input tax amount is legitimate, but since the supplier was supplied with non-data oil, it should

2010Nu16426 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

Gyeong-gu

CCC et al.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap39322 decided May 13, 2010

1. The part against Defendant BB director in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part is dismissed.

2. The appeal by Defendant CCC director is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant CCC head shall be borne by the director of the CCC head, and the Plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant BB head.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of KRW 97,672,540, including global income tax for the year 2006, and the imposition of KRW 67,394,50, including global income tax for the year 2007 shall be revoked, respectively. The imposition of KRW 25,532,820, and the imposition of KRW 12,397,30, and KRW 300, including value-added tax for the year 2007 shall be revoked by the head of Defendant BB tax office on December 5, 2008.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants shall be revoked in its entirety, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff is a personal entrepreneur who runs the petroleum retail business under the trade name of 'FF oil station' from 26-63, Seoul DDA EEdong 26-63.

B. In February 2006, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 150,854,546, total sum of supply values in the name of GG Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GG Energy”), and one tax invoice of KRW 71,854,545,545 in the name of GG energy during the first taxable period of January 2007 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax invoices, including six tax invoices”), and subsequently deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount, or filed a return on the value-added tax and the global income tax by including the total amount of sales income in the necessary expenses.

C. From September 18, 2007 to November 16, 2007, the director of the Central District Tax Office: (a) as a result of a tax investigation on GG energy, he notified the head of each competent tax office of the fact that GG energy was issued a tax invoice of KRW 71.45 billion equivalent to approximately KRW 99.5% of the value-added tax base without supplying actual oil to the sales partner including the Plaintiff, by means of forging the shipment slips during the first taxable period, etc.

D. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tax investigation with the Plaintiff from October 21, 2008 to November 24, 2008, and the Plaintiff received each of the tax invoices of this case without being supplied with actual oil from GG energy; for 2005 - the sales (excluding value-added tax) for 2005 - KRW 14,560,687,712 (for 2005, 3,110,705,705,582, 5,669, 206, 5,780, 366, 295, 207, 2096, 205, 2096, 2096, 305, 206, 2096, 305, 2096, 205, 2096, 306, 2096, 2096, 20946, 25636, 2564656, 2646, 20946

E. Accordingly, the Defendants deemed each of the instant tax invoices as false tax invoices received without real transactions, and on the grounds that some of the cash sales were omitted, and excessive appropriation of necessary expenses, etc., Defendant BB director of the tax office imposed a corrective imposition disposition of KRW 25,532,820 on December 5, 2008, and a corrective imposition disposition of KRW 12,397,300 on the value-added tax on the last day of 2007, and a corrective imposition disposition of KRW 12,397,30 on the value-added tax on the last day of 2007 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax imposition dispositions”), and Defendant CCC director of the tax office imposed a corrective imposition disposition of KRW 97,672,540 on the global income tax for 206, and a corrective imposition disposition of KRW 67,394,50 on the global income tax for 207 (hereinafter “each of the instant tax imposition dispositions”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased 240,00 liters total amount of duty-free oil illegally distributed from the directors of GG Energy Business from November 2006 to January 2007, and paid KRW 244,980,000 to the GG Energy Corporation account, but the Defendants’ respective dispositions based on the premise that all of the above transactions were processed are unlawful.

3. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

4. Determination

A. Whether each disposition of value-added tax of this case is legitimate

“1) The burden of proving that a tax invoice received in the course of a specific transaction constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact provided by Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, where the deduction of an input tax amount is denied on the ground that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737, Dec. 11, 2008). Moreover, a supplier and a supplier on a tax invoice are not entitled to deduct or refund an input tax amount unless there are special circumstances where the supplier was unaware of the nominal transaction, and the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the nominal transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1808, Jun. 11, 2009).

2) 갑 제3호증, 을 제3, 4, 9, 11, 12호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면, ① 원고의 남편인 이JJ은 2008. 11. 17. 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 사실과 다른 세금계산서로써 관련 부가가치세를 누락하였음을 확인한다는 내용의 확인서를 작성한 사실, ② 원고가 유류를 공급받았다고 주장하는 GG에너지는 2004. 9.경부터 KKKK터미널 주식회사 ℓℓℓℓℓ로부터 유류보관 탱크 1기(1,000kℓ)를 임차하여 사용하여 왔는데 2006년 이후에는 여기에서 석유를 입 ・ 출고한 적은 없고, MM에너지 주식회사에 수송장비별 출하현황을 조회한 결과 원고 주장의 차량과 기사가 해당날짜에는 출하내역이 없거나 도착지 등이 서로 다르게 기재되어 있는 사실, ③ 2006. 2 ~ 2007. 1기 과세기간 중 유류 무자료 중간상을 하는 개인사업자가 거래처에 무자료 유류를 공급하고 GG에너지 명의로 허위 세금계산서를 발행, 교부하여 GG에너지 명의로 매출을 발생시켜 왔던 사실, ④ GG에너지는 위 과세기간 중 주식회사 ZZZ에너지, YY에너지, 주식회사 XXXX마트 등으로부터 가공 매입세금계산서를 수취하고 출하전표를 위조하는 등의 수법으로 원고 등 매출 거래처에 자신이 실질적으로 유류를 공급하지 아니하고 부가가치세 매출과세표준 714억 255만 원의 약 99.5%에 해당하는 710억 3,247만 원의 허위세금계산서를 교부하는 등으로 비정상적인 영업을 한 사실, ⑤ 중부지방국세청장은 2007. 11.경 GG에너지에 대한 세무조사 후 의정부지방검찰청 고양지청에 GG에너지 및 그 대표이사 최PP, 김QQ, 천RR이 이 사건 각 세금계산서를 허위로 발행 ・ 교부하였다는 등의 내용으로 고발한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 이러한 사실을 종합하면 GG에너지는 실물거래를 하지 않은 채 비과세 기름 등을 보유한 개인사업자와 원고 등 주유소업을 하는 자 사이에 실물 거래가 이루어지도록 하면서 GG에너지 명의의 세금계산서 등을 발행하여 마치 GG에너지가 직접 실물거래를 한 것처럼 가장한 것으로 보이므로, 원고가 수취한 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 GG에너지가 실질적으로 유류를 공급하지 않았음에도 그가 유류를 공급한 것처럼 작성된 허위 또는 가공의 세금계산서에 해당한다.

3) Furthermore, we examine whether the Plaintiff was negligent in having been unaware of the name of each of the instant tax invoices and having been unaware of the fact.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 6 through Eul evidence 8-12, it is difficult for the plaintiff to be supplied with oil of 20,00 liters (one tank 1) at the price below 300,000 liters of G energy than the arm's length price, and the plaintiff can be found to have been supplied with oil of 240,00 liters over 12 times from November 2006 to January 207 (hereinafter " through this case"). However, according to each of the statements in Eul evidence 8-1 and 2, it is difficult for the plaintiff to be found that the plaintiff did not know that the plaintiff had been actually supplied with the oil of 206 and 207 due to the fact that the plaintiff did not know that the plaintiff had been actually supplied with the oil of 20,00 liters of G energy at the price below the market price of the plaintiff's actual supplier's supply of the oil of 1G in light of the fact that the plaintiff did not know about the supply of 2G through this case.

B. Whether each of the instant global income tax dispositions is lawful

1) If a tax invoice on a part of any of the costs reported by a taxpayer is proved to have been prepared falsely by the tax authority without real transactions, and it is disputed as to whether it is an actual cost, and the taxpayer's use of the cost claimed by the taxpayer and the other party to the payment have been proved to the extent that it is reasonable to believe that such cost has been actually paid, it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data, such as the account book keeping and documentary evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

2) 원고가 수취한 이 사건 각 세금계산서는 GG에너지가 실제 거래와 달리 허위로 작성한 것임은 앞의 가.2)항에서 본 바와 같다. 그러나, 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 갑 제12 호증, 을 제4호증의 2, 을 제7호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 이JJ이 세무조사 당시 이 사건 각 세금계산서가 경유의 실제 거래와 관련 없는 허위세금계산서라는 내용의 확인서를 작성하기는 하였으나, 이는 실제로는 GG에너지로부터 이 사건 경유를 공급받지 않았음에도 그 명의 세금계산서를 교부받았다는 의미 로 해석될 수 있고 아래 여러 사정에 비추어 보면 이SS이 이 사건 경유를 GG에너지가 아닌 다른 업체로부터도 전혀 공급받지 않았다는 의미로 위 확인서를 작성하여 주었다고 볼 수 없는 점, ② 원고는 2006. 11.경부터 2007. 1.경까지 GG에너지의 영업이사라고 칭하는 심HH으로부터 부정 유통되는 면세유 합계 240,000 ℓ를 구입한 것으로 하여 2006. 11. 7.부터 2007. 1. 30.까지 12회에 걸쳐 그 대금 합계 244,980,000 원을 자신의 TT은행 계좌(073001-04-076761)에서 GG에너지 법인계좌(◆◆ 강서지 점 100090-55-0002282 및 계양◆◆ 변방지점 계좌)로 각 송금하였고, 이에 대하여 피고 CCC세무서장은 GG에너지가 원고로부터 위 대금을 각 송금받은 날 ◆◆ 강서지 점으로 송금받은 79,000,000원(부가가치세 포함) 상당은 곧바로 주식회사 ZZZ에너지 로 인터넷 출금되었고, 계양◆◆ 변방지점 계좌로 송금받은 166,000,000원(부가가치세 포함) 상당은 직접 현금 인출되었음을 이유로 허위의 세금계산서 수수를 은폐하기 위 한 금융거래조작에 불과하다고 하면서도 위와 같이 송금된 돈이 다시 원고에게 반환되었는지 여부에 관하여는 이를 조사하지 않았거나 밝히지 못하고 있는 점, ③ 원고는 MM주유소 대리점을 운영하므로 POS(point of saℓes management, 판매시점관리) 시스템을 통하여 유류의 입 ・ 출고 및 재고가 관리되는데, 만약 원고가 위 기간 중 경유를 공급받지 않았다면 POS 시스템상 유류의 재고가 (-)가 되는 상태에서 판매가 이루어졌다는 모순이 생기게 되는 점, ④ MM에너지 주식회사의 유류를 운송하는 차량기사 이UU은 2006. 11. 6., 같은 달 20., 2006. 12. 19. 및 2007. 1. 9. 총 4회 , 같은 차량기사 정WW은 2006. 11. 27., 2006. 12. 6., 같은 달 10., 같은 달 22., 같은 달 28., 2007. 1. 16. 및 같은 달 23. 총 7회, 같은 차량기사 전VV는 2007. 1. 9. 각 원고에게 유류를 실제로 운송하였다는 내용의 확인서를 원고에게 작성해 주고, 당시 원고는 위 차량기사들로부터 MM GG에너지주식회사 발행의 출하지가 인천저유소로 되어 있는 출하전표(갑 제8호증의 1 내지 12)를 수령한 것으로 보이는 점 등을 인정할 수 있고, 여기에 ⑤ 앞서 본 바와 같이 무자료 유류거래상이 거래처에 불법유류 등을 공급하고 GG에너지 상호로 허위세금계산서를 발행 ・ 교부하여 GG에너지 명의로 매출을 발생시켜 왔던 사정을 보태어 보면, 원고는 2006. 11.경부터 2007. 1.경까지 무자료 유류거래상이 GG에너지 명의를 이용하여 부정 유통시킨 이 사건 경유 합계 240,000 ℓ를 실제로 공급받아 GG에너지 법인계좌를 통하여 그 대금을 모두 지급하였다고 인정된다.

Therefore, the part of the instant disposition imposing global income tax on each of the instant global income is unlawful on the premise that the instant transit transaction amount was not actually disbursed as necessary expenses.

(iii) a reasonable tax amount;

Except for the part that deemed as excessive appropriation of transaction price of the instant transit transaction in the instant disposition of global income tax by Defendant CCC head as necessary expenses, if the Plaintiff calculated a reasonable amount of tax to be paid additionally due to the correction as indicated in the re-calculation of global income tax in attached Forms 2006 and 2007, ① global income tax for the year 2006 is KRW 26,361,667, ② global income tax for the year 2007, ② global income tax for the year 2007 is KRW 32,34,80, and thus, the part that exceeds the reasonable amount of tax in the instant disposition of global

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of seeking the revocation of the part exceeding the above legitimate tax amount among the dispositions of global income tax of this case by the director of the CCC, and the remainder of the claim against the director of the CCC and the claim against the director of the BB tax office are dismissed for all reasons. Since the judgment of the first instance is justified as to the claim against the director of the BB tax office's conclusion partially different, the decision of the first instance is accepted by the director of the tax office's appeal, and the part against the director of the BB tax office's loss in the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. The appeal by the director