Early High Court Decision 2017Du61 (2017.03.09)

tax invoices received from data shall constitute a false tax invoice;

자료상으로부터 수취한 세금계산서는 사실과 다른 세금계산서에 해당하고 선ŽU한 관리자의 주의의무를 다하였다고 볼 수 없음

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2017Guhap65845 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

GuO and 2

O Head of the tax office and 1

May 24, 2018

August 9, 2018

1. The part that exceeds KRW 00,000,000 among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000, which was set out in [Attachment 1] No. 1 List against the Plaintiffs by Defendant OO head of the tax office, and the part that exceeds KRW 00,000,000 among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 00,000,000, which was set out in [Attachment 2] No. 2012, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against Defendant OO director and the claims against Defendant △△ director of the formerCC are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendant OO chief is 4/5, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the above Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant △ chief.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition disposition of value-added tax (including additional tax) set out in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs by the head of the defendant's OOO head and the head of the defendant OO head of the tax office shall revoke all the imposition disposition of global income tax (additional tax for lack of evidence) set forth in [Attachment 1] Nos. 3 and 4 against the plaintiff's oldCC.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff’s GuA and GuB are siblings, and the Plaintiff’s GuCC is a co-car of the Plaintiff’s GuA and GuB

"The plaintiffs are operating a gas station from February 10, 199 to ○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in the name of ○○○○○○○○○,” and (b) the plaintiffs received each tax invoice as listed in the following table (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice in this case") from EE Petroleum and FF Petroleum Distribution (hereinafter referred to as “stock company in the name of the corporation”) during the taxable period of the value-added tax for February 2, 201 and January 2012, and when reporting value-added tax for each taxable period, they deducted the input tax amount related to the tax invoice in the output tax amount and appropriated it as necessary expenses.

C. Defendant OO head of the tax office conducted an investigation of value-added tax, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “tax investigation of this case”) on DDR from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 by stipulating the period of investigation from October 0, 000 to October 0, 200 as “from June 30, 2012” (hereinafter referred to as “tax investigation of this case”). Since the instant tax invoice constitutes a different tax invoice from the fact that the actual supplier of oil and the supplier on the tax invoice (the transaction party in this case) are different, the Plaintiffs’ deduction of the amount equivalent to the amount of the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount as the input tax amount on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ deduction of the amount of the instant tax invoice as the input tax amount was made in an unfair manner, and made a correction and notification of the value-added tax for the period of 2011 and 11 December 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “value-added tax disposition”).

In addition, the Defendants recognized the purchase cost of the instant tax invoice as necessary expenses, but revised and notified each of the global income tax (hereinafter “instant global income tax disposition”) for the year 201 and 2012, which occurred from the receipt of tax invoices different from the facts to the Plaintiffs, as shown in [Attachment 3 and 4] attached Table 1, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal, but the request was dismissed on March 9, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiffs had already undergone a tax investigation from October 0, 2012 to October 20, 2012 on the same taxable period and items as the instant tax investigation (hereinafter referred to as “prior tax investigation”) and had had the procedure of dissatisfaction with respect to value-added tax and global income tax imposed thereon. The instant tax investigation constitutes an abuse of duplicate tax investigation or tax investigation right, and thus, the instant disposition based on an illegal tax investigation is unlawful.

2) The Plaintiffs actually purchased oil from the business partner of the instant case, but only purchased oil without authentic documentation in order to raise the high profit of the business parties of the instant case and sold the oil without authentic documentation to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiffs were actually supplied by the business partner of the instant case, the instant tax invoice cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice.

3) Even if the transaction partner who supplied oil to the D gas station is not the transaction partner of the instant case, the Plaintiffs did not know that the actual supplier of the oil was different from the entry of the supplier under the tax invoice. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not err by failing to know that the transaction partner was the data of the instant transaction partner, even though they were not the transaction partner, the Plaintiffs did not know that the actual supplier of the instant oil was different from the entry of the supplier under the tax invoice. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not have any mentioning of whether the information was the data of the instant transaction partner at the end of the pre-tax investigation period. Accordingly, the instant disposition was unlawful as it was against the principle of trust and protection because the Plaintiffs did not know that the transaction partner was the data of the instant transaction partner.

4) At the time of the preceding tax investigation, the investigating agency did not raise the issue of the business partner of the instant case. As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs were bound to believe that there was no particular measure on the Plaintiffs’ tax evasion proposal, and thus, this constitutes justifiable cause for exemption of penalty tax. Therefore, the penalty tax in the instant disposition ought to be fully exempted, or an erroneous payment for arrears should be mitigated at least as the content of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission’s resolution. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not recognize the fact that they would evade the duty to pay value-added tax on the instant tax invoice as the data of the business partner of the instant case. As such, the general under-reported penalty tax

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From October 0, 2012 to October 00, 2012, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office conducted a prior tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs on suspicion of receiving disguised processing data. The reasons why the Plaintiffs selected the Plaintiffs at the time as the object of investigation were as follows: “Plaintiff” during the taxable period from 2008 to 201, the date of the Plaintiff’s selection as the object of investigation shall be what is the data confirmation company, GGM, HH, and II, the KGGR, the KGG, the KGG, the KGG, the KGG, the KGG, the KGG, the KGG, the LGRR and the data, or without real transactions from the NGRN, the KGR, the

There was a suspicion of accepting a false tax invoice.

2) As above, the Plaintiffs received a prior tax investigation on transactions with companies confirmed as data, and according to the aforementioned prior tax investigation, the head of Echeon Tax Office imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiffs from January 2009 to December 2011, 201, and imposed comprehensive income tax on the Plaintiffs from October 2009 to December 2012 (hereinafter “prior disposition”). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the prior disposition on December 20, 2013 following the prior trial procedure, but lost at the first instance court (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Guhap16488, Jan. 23, 2015), and the Plaintiffs appealed pursuant to the order of the appellate court to reduce part of the additional tax, the head of Echeon Tax Office reduced the additional tax pursuant to this recommendation, and the Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrawn the aforementioned lawsuit.

The reasons for the preceding disposition include the part that the plaintiffs received the purchase tax invoice of KRW 000,000,000 from the data merchant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "P Energy") from July 29, 201 to October 13, 201.

3) On October 0, 2012, on which the preceding tax investigation was completed, the Plaintiffs: (a) sent FF petroleum distribution to △△ Tax Office; and (b) sent EE gas stations to △ Tax Office on October 0, 2012; (c) concluded that the head of △△ District Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation into corporate tax against EE stations from October 20, 2012 to October 2012; (d) concluded that the EE stations became final and conclusive on July 20, 2012; and (e) notified Defendant OO of this fact on October 0, 2012; and (e) concluded that the head of ○○ District Tax Office concluded that he/she made a final and conclusive investigation into FF stations’ distribution of petroleum from October 0 to October 20, 2012; and (e) concluded that he/she made a final and conclusive investigation into the data from October 21, 2012 to October 21, 2012.

4) The results of the above tax investigation on EE gas stations and FF petroleum distribution are as follows:

5) After the completion of the above tax investigation on EE stations and FF petroleum distribution, the head of the O tax office sent to the Plaintiffs on October 00, 2012, “I would have been processed in accordance with the law and principles by means of tax investigation, etc., and would have been processed in accordance with the laws and principles.” On February 18, 2013, the head of the OO sent to the Plaintiffs.”

6) The instant tax investigation was conducted from Oct. 0, 2016 to Oct. 0, 2016 on the basis of the investigation period from Jan. 1, 2012 to Jun. 30, 2012 (on-site investigation 4 days, office investigation 25 days). The investigation process against the Plaintiffs was that the Plaintiff was suspected of receiving false tax invoices equivalent to KRW 1282 million during the first half of 2012 from the instant transaction party notified of taxation data as a confirmatory company. The former RR, as a partner of the Plaintiff-Gu, was in charge of the instant business, such as the purchase of fuel at the D station, was made on Aug. 11, 2016 as follows in the process of the instant tax investigation.

7) 김QQ는 이 법정에 증인으로 출석하여 '본인은 영업사원으로서 사무실에 출근한 적이 없고, 주유소와 EE주유소, FF석유유통을 연결해주는 역할만 하였기 때문에 EE주유소와 FF석유유통의 매입이 0원이라는 사실은 몰랐으며, 구RR의 요청으로 ▽▽과 ▣▣에 있는 주유저장소를 방문하여 확인시켜 준 적이 있고, 정상적으로 기름을 공급했다고 생각한다. EE주유소, FF석유유통과 같은 소규모 석유대리점을 통해 주유소에 석유를 공급하는 거래구조에 문제가 없는 것으로 알고 있고, 주유소 입장에서는 대형 정유사에서 매입하는 것보다 이러한 소규모 석유대리점에서 매입하는 것이 조금 싸서 한 달에 500~600만 원 정도의 금액 차이가 나기 때문에 이익이 있다'라는 취지로 증언하였다.

8) As to the instant disposition, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition for grievance with the purport that “the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission) shall impose penalty tax in bad faith when conducting the instant tax investigation for not less than four years but not less than four years and not less than four years before the notification of the result or taxation data without any explanation,” and the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission) made a resolution on December 5, 2016 that “the cancellation of penalty tax in bad faith after December 26, 2012,” among the instant disposition of value-added tax imposed on the Plaintiffs by the Head of the Non-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission).”

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제3호증 내지 제13호증, 을 제3호증 내지 제15호증의 각 기재(각 가지번호 포함), 증인 김QQ의 증언, 변론 전체의 취지

D. Determination

1) Whether the instant tax investigation constitutes a duplicate tax investigation

A) Article 81-4(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 15220, Dec. 19, 2017; hereinafter the same) provides that a tax official shall conduct a tax investigation to the minimum extent necessary to realize appropriate and fair taxation and shall not abuse his/her authority to conduct an investigation for other purposes, etc.

In light of the aforementioned provisions and the purport thereof, “where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion” under Article 81-4(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, which provides for a case where reinvestigation is exceptionally permitted, should be limited to cases where the probability of tax evasion is recognized based on objectivity and rationality materials (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010). It is reasonable to interpret that such materials do not include materials already examined in the previous tax investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du6083, Jan. 27, 2011). Meanwhile, the result of a tax investigation conducted by another tax authority with respect to a transaction partner of a person subject to the investigation after the previous tax investigation can constitute clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion by the person subject to the investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8263, Nov. 15, 2012).

B) According to the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant disposition against the Plaintiffs is based on the taxation data derived from the results of the tax investigation completed around July 2012 on the EE gas station and around November 2012 on the FF petroleum distribution, and it appears that the instant tax investigation was conducted by supplementing the taxation data through the instant tax investigation. Therefore, even if the instant tax investigation is conducted formally as the investigation only during the period of 1 January 2012, it is reasonable to deem that the instant tax investigation was conducted without distinguishing between the Plaintiffs and EE gas stations from the two years of 2011 and 1 January 2012. In this case, it may be problematic whether the instant tax investigation was conducted with respect to the transaction between the Plaintiffs and EE gas stations.

However, even if the instant tax investigation constitutes a double tax investigation on value-added tax and global income tax in 2011, as seen earlier, the Director of the Regional Tax Office of ○○○, as seen earlier, conducted a prior tax investigation on the Plaintiffs from October 0, 2012 to October 2012, 2012, and conducted a prior tax investigation on the companies confirmed as data such as LL energy at the time, and it was not clear whether the said investigation was conducted mainly with the companies confirmed as data, and whether it constitutes EE stations. The tax investigation conducted by the Director of the ○○ Tax Office, which confirmed as data on EE stations, must be completed at July 2012 after the completion of the prior tax investigation on the Plaintiffs, and thereafter, the notification of confirmation on data on EE stations constitutes an exceptional case where the Plaintiffs’ tax evasion is acknowledged, and such notification constitutes a case where a reinvestigation under Article 81-4(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes is exceptionally permitted.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the tax investigation of this case constitutes an illegal duplicate tax investigation is without merit.

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

A) In a case where a taxpayer of value-added tax proves that a tax invoice submitted as a basis for input tax deduction was falsely prepared without a real transaction or that the entries in a tax invoice are different from the actual purchase, and the authenticity of the entries in a tax invoice is disputed. In a case where it is proved that a transaction with a supplier listed in a tax invoice claimed by the taxpayer is considerably false, it is necessary to prove that a taxpayer who is easy to present data, such as books and evidence, regarding the fact that the transaction with the supplier listed in the tax invoice was actually conducted with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3407, Jul. 14, 1995; 2007Du1439, Aug. 20, 200). In addition, a person who is obliged to issue a tax invoice to a supplier of goods or services pursuant to the Value-Added Tax Act is not a person establishing a nominal legal relationship with the supplier, but a person who actually performs the transaction of goods or services with the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200202Do452078.

B) Comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged earlier, the following circumstances: ① there is no oil actually purchased; ② the purchase tax invoice was zero won; ② the oil storage facilities listed on the documents attached to the registration of the instant business was deemed not false or used; ③ the oil payment amount was typical characteristics of the data by immediately withdrawing from the account of the instant business entity or transferring it to another account; ③ the tax investigation conducted with respect to the instant business entity around 2012 became final and conclusive by the instant business entity; thus, the supply of oil by the instant tax invoice to the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed as the instant business entity. Thus, even if the Plaintiffs formed a nominal legal relationship with the instant business entity regarding the instant transaction, the actual supplier of the oil listed on the instant tax invoice constitutes a third party, not the instant business entity. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Whether the principle of reliance protection should apply to the Plaintiffs, unless the Plaintiffs were negligent in not knowing the fact of reliance on the name of the customer of the instant case.

A) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice knew the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the supplier was not aware of the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier, the supplier may not deduct or refund the input tax amount, and that the supplier was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the purchaser was not aware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the purchase tax invoice, the person claiming the deduction or refund of the input tax amount should prove (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiffs did not know that the actual supplier of the oil was not the transaction partner of the instant case while engaging in the instant tax invoice, and that there was no negligence due to the failure of such knowledge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① Since the complicated supply structure of the oil industry and non-material transactions using tax-free oil have become social issues for a long time, there was a need for an oil supplier to pay special attention to whether the oil supplier is a actual supplier. Furthermore, since around 199, the Plaintiffs operated a D gas station. In light of such career, it seems that the Plaintiffs were sufficiently aware of the normal structure and distribution route of the oil supply, the general form and method of transactions in the industry, and the actual conditions and risks of transactions in the oil industry.

② 원고들은 김QQ를 통하여 이 사건 거래처와 거래하게 되었는데, 원고들은 김QQ로부터 최초로 소개받은 PP에너지와는 2011년 7월경부터 2011년 10월경까지 거래하였고, 2011년 10월경부터 2011년 12월경까지는 EE주유소와 거래하였으며, EE석유가 2011년 12월 직권 폐업된 이후 2012년 2월경부터는 FF석유유통과 거래하였는바, 위와 같이 2 ~ 3개월 정도의 단기간 거래 후 계속적으로 거래업체를 옮기는 것은 통상적인 거래행태로 보이지 아니한다. 특히 원고들은 거래를 시작할 무렵 제출받은 이 사건 거래처의 법인등기부등본, 사업자등록증 등을 통하여 이 사건 거래처들이 모두 원고들과 거래를 시작하기 직전에 설립된 업체였다는 점을 알 수 있었을 것이므로, 이 사건 거래처가 자료상이 아닌지 더욱 유의하였어야 한다.

③ The shipment slips are important data to confirm that the oil is transacted through normal distribution channels. The shipment slips issued by the parties to the instant case in their own name do not contain any temperature, weight, sulfur content, tank serial number, etc., and therefore the entry of the shipment slips issued by the parties to the instant case was considerably different from the shipment slips normally issued by the parties to the instant case, and the “in the absence of the shipment” did not include the names of the parties to the instant case. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs were supplied with oil at a price lower than 20-30 won per liters per liters than the price supplied by the parties to the instant case. Therefore, the Plaintiffs should have thoroughly confirmed the entry of the shipment slips, whether there is anything abnormal, and the place of business, etc.

④ Even if the Plaintiffs confirmed the business registration certificate, permission certificate, etc. of the instant transaction partner and remitted the oil price to the account of the instant transaction partner, the business registration certificate is merely a certificate issued by the head of the competent tax office to the head of the competent district tax office by requiring the business operator to apply for registration in order to identify persons liable to pay value-added tax, etc. and to secure taxation data, and it is merely a certificate of simple business fact registration, and thus, it does not lead to the recognition that the transaction partner of the instant transaction partner satisfies the qualification or requirements for operating business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6934, Jul. 15, 2005). Since the copy of the passbook of the instant transaction partner merely designated the deposit account, the Plaintiffs

⑤ 원고들에게 이 사건 거래처를 소개한 김QQ는 이 법정에 증인으로 출석하여 구RR과 함께 이 사건 거래처의 유류저장소를 방문하여 확인하였고, 원고들뿐 아니라자신도 이 사건 거래처가 자료상이라는 사실을 몰랐다는 취지로 증언하였으나, 그 증언을 뒷받침할 만한 객관적인 자료는 존재하지 아니한다. 그리고 김QQ의 증언에 의하더라도 김QQ는 영업사원일 뿐 이 사건 거래처의 사업장에 출근한 적도 없고 세금계산서 발급 등 운영과정에 관하여는 모른다는 것인바, 원고들이 직접 이 사건 거래처의 대표자나 사업장 등을 확인하는 등으로 주의의무를 다하였다고 볼 만한 객관적인 증거가 없는 이상, 영업사원에 불과한 김QQ를 믿고 거래하였다는 사정만으로는 원고들의 선의ㆍ무과실을 인정할 수 없다.

B) Meanwhile, the response by the head of ○○ Tax Office and the head of ○○ Tax Office on the information on the information on the notification of tax evasion filed by the Plaintiffs earlier is merely that the details reported by the Plaintiffs are already used or expected to be used as taxation data, and does not contain any content that the transaction parties of this case are not data nor that taxation is not made with respect to the transaction parties of this case. Thus, the response against the information on tax evasion filed by the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have granted any trust to the Plaintiffs.

C) All of the plaintiffs' arguments are without merit.

4) Determination as to the assertion on the portion of penalty tax in the instant disposition

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 48 (1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the government shall not impose penalty taxes if the grounds for the imposition of penalty taxes under this Act or other tax-related Acts fall under the grounds for extending the due date under Article 6 (1) or the taxpayer has justifiable grounds for non-performance of obligations.

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a tax return and tax payment, as prescribed by the Act without justifiable grounds, the taxpayer’s intentional or negligent acts are not considered as administrative sanctions, and such sanctions should be imposed as to nonperformance of obligations under the tax law unless there are justifiable grounds, such as where the taxpayer is deemed to have not been aware of his/her obligations, and where there are circumstances where it is unreasonable for him/her to reasonably present his/her obligations or where it is unreasonable for him/her to expect the fulfillment of his/her obligations, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004; 2010Du1622, Apr. 28, 2011).

As seen earlier, the imposition of the instant value-added tax is divided into ① false entry in the tax invoice, ② unjustly underreporting, and ③ unfaithful payment, and the instant global income tax disposition constitutes the entire additional tax for documentary evidence not being proven. Furthermore, in the case of underreporting additional tax, whether there are justifiable grounds for reduction or exemption of each additional tax, and whether an underreporting additional tax should be imposed a general underreporting additional tax, not an unfair underreporting additional tax.

B) Additional tax on non-entry in the tax invoice and the instant global income tax (additional tax on lack of evidence)

Article 2(3)5 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that “If an entrepreneur is supplied with goods or services and is issued a tax invoice under the name of a person who is not the actual supplier of such goods or services, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the value of supply shall be added to the payable tax or deducted from the refundable tax amount.” In addition, Articles 81(4) main sentence and 160-2(2)2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provide that “if an entrepreneur is supplied with goods or services with another entrepreneur in connection with his/her business and fails to receive a tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act or receives a tax invoice different from the fact, the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount that he/she has not received or received differently (referring to the difference from the amount to be received by case)

As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs did not pay due attention to receiving oil from the instant transaction party and did not know the fact that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for receiving a false tax invoice. Therefore, the instant tax disposition on the non-statement of the tax invoice and the instant global income tax (additional tax for lack of evidence) is lawful.

C) Unreasonable underreported penalty tax part

Article 47-3(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that where a taxpayer has filed a return on the tax base of value-added tax under the Value-Added Tax Act by the statutory due date of return, where the taxpayer has filed a return on the tax base or the amount of tax payable less than the amount that should be reported, the amount equivalent to 10/100 of the underreported amount of tax payable shall be the penalty tax. As seen earlier, it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable reason for the Plaintiffs to file a return on the tax base of value-added tax and the amount of tax payable by deducting the input tax

However, in light of the language, structure, etc. of relevant provisions such as Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, even if a taxpayer received a false certification and underreporting the tax base, if the taxpayer did not know that there was a false certification, it shall not be deemed that it was a case of underreporting the tax base in an unjust manner. Moreover, if a taxpayer received a different tax invoice from a supplier on the relevant tax invoice and a real supplier, and received a different tax invoice, and then the taxpayer did not know that it was false due to gross negligence, it shall not be deemed that such act constitutes “in cases of underreporting the tax base in an unjust manner” under Article 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes. In addition, in order for the taxpayer to constitute “in cases of underreporting the tax base in an unjust manner,” the taxpayer should be aware that the taxpayer would receive a deduction or refund of the tax base and amount of tax other than the amount of tax paid on the relevant tax invoice, or that the taxpayer would receive a decrease in the amount of tax revenue under the relevant tax invoice through refund, etc.

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff actually supplied oil at the supply amount and price stated in the instant tax invoice at the time specified in the tax invoice, and thereafter paid the purchase amount and its total value-added tax to the account in the name of the business party in this case, and there is no clear circumstance to deem that the Plaintiffs in collusion with the business party in the instant tax invoice, or that the pertinent business party would not pay the input tax after filing a tax return as data, even if the Plaintiffs received the tax invoice different from the facts and received the input tax deduction, it cannot be deemed as unlawful for the Plaintiffs to have been aware that the Plaintiffs exceeded the amount of 00 years under-reported tax base, and that the Defendants were to receive the deduction of the input tax amount under the instant tax invoice by evading the liability to pay value-added tax on the instant tax invoice by failing to pay it after filing the tax invoice under the instant tax invoice. As such, in imposing the additional tax on the instant tax invoice, the portion of the under-reported tax amount exceeding 000, 2000, which is an unfair under-reported tax return of 200,2000, respectively.

This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

D) Additional tax for insincere payment

Article 47-4(1) main sentence of Article 47-4(1)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that where a taxpayer fails to pay a national tax by the due date or pays a tax less than the amount to be paid by the due date under the tax-related Acts, "tax unpaid or underpaid amount of tax x the period from the day following the due date for payment to the date of voluntary payment or the date of payment notice x the interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree x the period from the day following the due date for payment x the due date for payment x the interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be deemed as penalty tax. The penalty tax in bad faith is deemed as having received financial benefits for the amount unpaid by the due date for payment by the due date for payment, and is characterized as

On October 0, 2012, on the date when the preceding tax investigation was completed by the Plaintiffs, FF petroleum distribution was conducted on October 0, 2012, and on October 00, 2012, EE liquor was presented to the ○○ Tax Office to a suspected company on each data. However, on October 00, 2012, the head of ○○ Tax Office sent each reply to the Plaintiffs that “the details reported by the Plaintiffs to the Plaintiffs were already used for taxation through the tax investigation, etc. and will be processed in accordance with the law and principles.” The head of ○○ Tax Office sent each reply to the Plaintiffs on October 00, 2013, using the details reported by the Plaintiffs to the Plaintiffs, and that “the disposition was made in accordance with the law and principles,” and only three years and seven months have passed since the date of the above final reply, it was earlier examined the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiffs from the business parties.

According to the above facts, the disposition of this case was made more than 3 years and 7 months after the date of the final reply to the plaintiffs' tax evasion report, and there was a growing burden on the plaintiffs' tax evasion penalty taxes in good faith than when the disposition of this case was made immediately after the completion of the tax investigation or immediately after the response to the above information on the tax evasion report. However, such fact alone does not mean that the plaintiffs have justifiable reasons for not paying the input tax amount equivalent to the input tax amount of the tax invoice of this case. Rather, the plaintiffs' reply to the information on the tax evasion report of this case is that the plaintiffs are already utilized for taxation or would be utilized for taxation, on the premise that the transaction parties of this case fall under the data of this case. It does not include the contents that the transaction parties of this case are not data of this case or that the tax would not be imposed any more with regard to the transaction parties of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs did not receive the above response and did not have any opportunity to deduct the input tax amount under the tax invoice of this case.

Therefore, even if the plaintiffs received a reply to the tax evasion report by the head of ○○ Tax Office and the head of ○○ Tax Office, and believed that the tax invoice in this case would no longer be taxed, it is nothing more than a arbitrary judgment by the plaintiffs beyond the objective meaning of the language and text, and it is not unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to fulfill the obligation to pay the value-added tax in this case. Ultimately, it cannot be deemed that there is any justifiable reason not to cause any negligence on the part of the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the value-added tax in this case, and thus, the disposition imposing the penalty tax in good faith among the disposition of the value-added tax in this case is lawful.

5) Sub-determination (Calculation of Legitimate Tax Amount)

Of the instant disposition of value-added tax, the portion of the unjustly underreported penalty tax exceeds the general underreporting penalty, and the portion of the remainder of the penalty tax and the principal tax are lawful. The instant disposition of global income tax is also lawful. Therefore, the amount of the instant disposition of global income tax is also 00,000,000 among the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for 2 years 20,000,000 listed in Table 1 listed in Table 1 attached to the Plaintiffs by the head of the Defendant OOO head of the tax office (=i.e., the principal tax amount of KRW 00,000,000 + the additional tax amount of KRW 0,000 for non-reported tax + the amount exceeding the ordinary underreporting penalty tax + KRW 0,000 for non-reported penalty tax + KRW 00,000 for non-reported penalty tax + KRW 000 for non-reported tax amount of KRW 300,000 for non-reported tax amount of KRW 20,000 for each tax return.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant OO chief of the tax office are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff CC's claims against the defendant △△ chief of the tax office are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.