Since the place of destination does not confirm even after receiving the shipment ticket different from the place of destination, it shall not be deemed good faith or negligence.

Despite the fact that other gas stations than the Plaintiff’s gas station entered in the place of destination on the shipment slip delivered, it cannot be viewed as good faith and negligence since oil transactions are conducted without obtaining a business registration certificate or a petroleum retail business registration certificate from the opposite contractual party and without verifying the place of business.

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011. Revocation of revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

Kim XX et al.

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

July 12, 2011

August 23, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On January 3, 2011, the Defendant confirmed that each disposition of KRW 2,835,940 on the second-term value-added tax of KRW 17,059,820 for the second-term value-added tax of KRW 2009 against Plaintiff Kim XX, Inc. and KRW 2,835,940 for the second-term value-added tax of KRW 200 for November 1, 201 is null and void.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff Kim XX operates a YY station from 000-1, Nam-nam Eup, Nam-si, Namyang-si, and Plaintiff YYPE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “YYPE”) operates Yang PY station in Samsung PY-17, for the purpose of the Gyeonggi Pyeong-si.

B. The Plaintiff Kim XX received a tax invoice of KRW 110,200,000 from the supply value of KRW 110,200,000 from the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○○○”) during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 2009, and filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount. Plaintiff YP received a tax invoice of KRW 25,760,000 from the supply value of KRW 25,760,00 during the second taxable period of the value-added tax in 209, and filed a value-added tax return including the input tax amount.

C. On November 1, 2010, the Defendant issued a sales and purchase tax invoice to Plaintiff YP on January 3, 201, to Plaintiff YP, and issued the sales and purchase tax invoice to each of the above Plaintiffs on January 3, 2011. Each of the above tax invoices received from each of the above Plaintiffs on the ground that each of the above tax invoices received from ○○ PPP is a tax invoice different from the fact. The Defendant denied the input tax deduction under each of the above tax invoices, and issued each of the above dispositions to Plaintiff YP, YP, 17,059,820, respectively, to Plaintiff 2,835,940 won, and YP, 17,059,820 won, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 5-1, 6-1, Eul evidence 1-1, 2 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions in this case is minor;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the Plaintiffs purchased oil from ○○ Pon, and received a tax invoice, each of the tax invoices received by the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, each of the dispositions in this case is unlawful. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs’ respective dispositions in this case are unlawful since they did not know that they were a disguised business operator, but did not know the fact that they were not a disguised business operator, and each of the dispositions in this case was unlawful. The illegality of each of the dispositions in this case is serious and clear.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether each tax invoice received by the Plaintiffs constitutes a disguised transaction or processing transaction

In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that provides that if a tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act differs from the fact, the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act, or transaction subject to taxation is nominal, and there is a separate person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs, the person to whom such income, profit, or transaction belongs shall be liable for tax payment and the other person to whom such income, profit, or transaction is applied, the requisite entries in the tax invoice refer to cases where the necessary entries in the tax invoice do not coincide with those in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the transaction with respect to the goods or service, notwithstanding the formal entries in the transaction contract, etc. made between the parties concerned,

In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, 00-1 side-to-face Nos. 303 at the place of business in Bupyeong-si, Seocheon-si, 2009, but the place of business did not keep books and records of oil transactions and driver, etc. at the place of business. The tax invoice issued in 2009 at the 000 page is the sale and purchase of the total amount of the sales and purchase, and the above company did not hold the so-called "processed tax invoice issued without actual oil transactions", and the above company did not hold oil storage facilities or oil transport vehicles. According to the above facts of recognition, each tax invoice received from the plaintiffs 00 page constitutes a real transaction or a disguised transaction without actual oil transaction (in light of the fact that the plaintiffs submitted each of the above evidence Nos. 361 through 600).

2) Determination on the plaintiffs' 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 nominal name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the nominal name (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2277, Jun. 28, 2002).

Therefore, according to the statement of evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 6-1 and 3, each of the above facts can be acknowledged that each of the plaintiffs received each tax invoice from ○○○○ Pon, and remitted the amount stated in each of the above tax invoice to ○0 Pont. However, the above facts alone do not lead to the plaintiffs' failure to know the fact that the plaintiffs did not know of the name of ○ P on Pont, and it cannot be said that there was no negligence. Rather, considering the overall arguments of evidence No. 3, evidence Nos. 5-2 through 4, and evidence Nos. 6-2, the three of the above facts are stated in the list that the plaintiff Kim P on 00 P on 200 P on 3rd P on 10 P on 2nd P on 2nd P on 2nd P on 3rd Pon, and that the plaintiffs did not know the above fact that the delivery price was 'NS oil reservoir' or Do P on 2nd Pont.

3. Conclusion

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