early 2011 Heavy0982 ( December 06, 2011)

It is true that the Plaintiff’s good faith and negligence are not recognized by a false tax invoice.

In a false tax invoice, in full view of the fact that the Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale and retail business for about 19 years and seems to know the actual state of the transaction in data and the risk of the transaction, the Plaintiff was supplied with oil more than the market, and there was sufficient circumstances to suspect that each of the transaction parties of this case was not the actual supplier, the Plaintiff’s negligence without fault cannot be acknowledged.

2012 disposition of revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AA

2. One other than the director of the tax office

May 8, 2013

June 5, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The head of Echeon Tax Office rendered on January 3, 201 to the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007 each imposition of the value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000), the value-added tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax of KRW 000), the value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period (including additional tax of KRW 000) in 2009, and the value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period (including additional tax of KRW 000) in 209 and the tax imposition of KRW 000 for the second period (including additional tax of KRW 00) in 207, the global income tax of KRW 00 for the year 2007, and the global income tax of KRW 000 for the year 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From November 28, 1998 to March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff run a gas station (hereinafter “instant gas station”) with the trade name “CC gas station” from 000 OOdong, Gwangju City from November 28, 1998 to March 31, 2010.

B. The Plaintiff received each tax invoice (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) from D Energy, Co., Ltd., EEpic, Co., Ltd, FEpic, and GG H Energy, Co., Ltd, and HH Energy (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant transaction parties”), and filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount subject to the deduction, and then included the said supply amount in the necessary expenses, and filed each global income tax return for 2008 to 2009, by adding the said supply value to the necessary expenses.

C. On January 3, 2011, each of the instant transaction partners issued false sales tax invoices without real transactions; the instant tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff from each of the said transaction partners were also false tax invoices; and on January 3, 201, the Plaintiff denied the input tax deduction under the instant tax invoices; the amount of value-added tax for the second term portion (including additional tax of 000 won); the amount of value-added tax for the second term portion (including additional tax of 000 won); the amount of value-added tax for the first term portion (including additional tax of 000 won); and the amount of value-added tax for the second term portion (including additional tax of 000 won) for the second term portion (including additional tax of 00 won); and the amount of tax for the second term portion (including additional tax of 000 won) for the global income tax for the second term portion (including additional tax of 000 won); and the amount of tax for the Defendants shall be 000 won for each global income tax for 2000 years and 2000 years for each global income tax.

D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 10, 201, but was dismissed on July 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The non-satched facts, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 to 20, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4 (if available, including each number, and hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice from each of the instant transaction parties, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, and even if the actual supplier of domestic oil is not a transaction party of the instant case, the Plaintiff did not know and did not know it, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

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

A) It is necessary for a taxpayer who is liable to pay value-added tax to prove that a tax invoice submitted by a person liable to pay value-added tax on the basis of input tax was falsely prepared without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the actual purchase, and that the tax invoice is proved to be real purchase or the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed, and that where a transaction with a supplier indicated in a tax invoice claimed by a taxpayer has been proved to the extent that the transaction with the supplier is substantially false, it is easy for the taxpayer to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the actual transaction with the supplier entered in the tax invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 2009). In addition, those who are liable to deliver a tax invoice to a person who is supplied with goods or services under the Value-Added Tax Act should be deemed to have formed a nominal legal relationship with the supplier, and those who actually provided goods or services.

B) The following circumstances are found in accordance with the purport of the entire entries and arguments in Gap, Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, Eul, and Eul, and five, and <1> In other words, the Central Tax Office, etc. has conducted a tax investigation on each of the transaction parties of this case, and each of the transaction parties is found to have issued a false shipment mark even though each of the transaction parties was not supplied with oil from oil actually similar to oil, and each of the above transaction parties is suspected as data.

The date on which HG and the representative director of H Energy Co., Ltd. are listed in the list of its customers, and the date on which each of the above tax invoices was listed is suspended on March 31, 201 or on December 30, 2010, and the representative director of FF Energy Co., Ltd. listed in the list of its respective tax invoices that were listed in the table of its customers, and that each of the above listed listed in the table of its tax invoices was supplied to a large number of gas stations, and that each of the above listed listed in the table of its tax invoices was supplied to the tax offices for the purpose of the Punishment of Tax Evaders, which was declared to have been sentenced to imprisonment [the Daejeon District Court 208 Man-26 (Separation), and that each of the above listed companies was not listed in the table of its customers, and that each of the above listed companies was listed in the table of its own tax invoices with 209 high Gohap 209 high Gohap 209 high Gohap 2095 (Concurrent 209).

2) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

A) Unless there are special circumstances, the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice may not deduct or refund the input tax amount, unless there is any negligence on the part of the person who received the other tax invoice, and the person who received the tax invoice shall prove that there is no negligence on the part of the person who did not know the above fact in the name of the invoice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

B) Even if the oil supplier did not know that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and if the oil supplier did not know that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, it cannot be said that the actual supplier did not know that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and that the oil supplier did not know or know that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and that the oil supplier did not know or know that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and that the oil supplier did not know or know that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and that the oil supplier was not a business consumer in this case, and that the oil supplier did not know or know that the oil supplier was not a business partner in this case, and that the oil supplier was not a business consumer in this case, and that there was no more than 89 years ago, and that there was a need to provide various data about the supply of the oil in this case.

3. Conclusion

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