early 201J 0093 (02.08, 2011)

It is insufficient to recognize that the oil corresponding to the tax invoice was purchased.

The fact that the transaction partner who purchased oil is the so-called "data" that has received a false tax invoice without real transaction of oil and issued a sales tax invoice without supplying the oil, the fact that the oil storage was leased but there was no record of the entry and departure of oil, and the oil storage was not released in the oil station listed in the shipment slip issued by the negotiating transaction party, and the negotiating transaction party can find the fact that the oil did not own a facility or a transport vehicle capable of oil, so it is insufficient to recognize that the buying transaction party purchased the oil corresponding to the tax invoice of this case.

2011Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

November 8, 2011

November 22, 2011

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 3,443,020 for the second term of 208, KRW 50,751,100 for the second term of 2009, KRW 409,080 for the second term of 2009, and KRW 6,423,700 for the business year of 2008, and KRW 409,08 for the corporate tax of KRW 6,423,70 for the business year of 209 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established on April 5, 2006 and is a corporation that runs oil retail business in XX 401-2 at the time of Pakistan.

B. In 208, the Plaintiff received 321,185,000 won in total from 20,454,000 won (hereinafter “O energy”) and 321,185,000 won in total from O energy during the 2nd VAT taxable period (hereinafter “O energy”) during the 2008 second VAT taxable period, and filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount for each of the pertinent taxable periods.

C. On October 8, 2010, the Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s tax deduction of input tax pursuant to the above tax invoice on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s oil transaction constituted data on which sales and purchase tax invoices were issued without real transaction. The instant disposition imposing KRW 3,443,020 for the second period of 2008, value-added tax 50,751,100 for the second period of 2009, and corporate tax of KRW 409,080 for the business year of 2008, and corporate tax of KRW 6,423,70 for the business year of 209.

D. On December 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition, and on February 2, 2011

28. Upon receipt of the decision of dismissal, the instant lawsuit was filed.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff purchased actual oil from XX energy andO energy and received the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s confirmation of the sales business registration certificate and business registration of the XX energy and O energy, and transferred the oil price to the bank account under the name of each company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was a disguised business operator, and was not negligent in not knowing the fact. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax invoice is a false transaction or processing transaction

The meaning that the entries of the tax invoice are different from the fact is that the contents of the requisite entries of the tax invoice do not coincide with those of the person who actually supplied or is supplied with the goods or services, regardless of the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties to the goods or services.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, 4-7, each of the above evidence Nos. 1 to 3-2, and evidence Nos. 1 to 7, 2008 energy is the so-called "data" that issues the sales tax invoice without receiving false oil from MM, D Energy during the second taxable period of the Value-Added Tax Act, and that there is no supply of oil. The place of business of Cheongju City is merely a small-scale office, and YY Co., Ltd., YT, YYS, △△△, and YB leased each oil storage from 5-2, but there is no fact that the Plaintiff, on the basis of the above evidence Nos. 1 to 5-2, did not release oil into the storage facility of the above oil, and it is reasonable to recognize that the Plaintiff, on the basis of the fact that there is no false delivery of the list to the transport engineer or the sale of the above oil to 5-OMMM.

2) Determination on the Plaintiff’s 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 is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was unaware of the said name, the person who asserts the deduction or refund of the input tax amount must prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

Therefore, according to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 9 (including each number when there are spot numbers), and the witness's testimony, the plaintiff confirmed the sales business registration certificate and the business registration certificate of the XX Energy or OO Energy, and can be recognized that the plaintiff transferred the amount stated in the above tax invoice to the XX energy or OO energy. However, the above facts of recognition alone did not know the fact that the plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the plaintiff was unaware of the name of the x energy or OO energy and did not know of the fact that the plaintiff was negligent.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, oil reservoir: (a) no oil reservoir may be found to be the whole purport of pleading; (b) no oil reservoir is required to issue four tickets prior to the issuance of oil stations stating “the date of shipment,” “the place of arrival,” and “the place of arrival,” and (c) two copies of oil shall be provided to an article transporting the oil with confirmation of destination; (d) the oil station, etc. which received oil can be confirmed by comparing the shipment place with the actual transport required time from the shipment place to the destination; (e) the Plaintiff’s duty of inspection on the oil storage facility that the Plaintiff did not have to obtain the Plaintiff’s signature or seal on the shipment date, and that the Plaintiff did not have any other duty of inspection on the shipment date, temperature, and portion of the oil container that the Plaintiff did not have any other duty of inspection on the shipment date, and that the Plaintiff did not have any other duty of inspection on the shipment date, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any doubt that the Plaintiff did not have any duty of inspection on the shipment date and its portion.

3. Conclusion

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