Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2706 ( November 30, 2010)

It is true that the delivery price of the shipment slip is not inconsistent with the other party to the tax invoice.

The oil storage facilities for storing petroleum products were not owned, and there was no transport vehicle for oil transport, and the oil delivery price listed in the shipment slips is not inconsistent with the opposite contractual party of the tax invoice, and thus, the oil delivery price is not in accord with the opposite contractual party of the tax invoice, and is in a tax invoice prepared by disguised or fictitious

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

2011Revocation of disposition of imposing value-added tax;

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the District Tax Office and one other

December 13, 2011

January 17, 2012

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

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

The imposition of KRW 585,95,810 on June 1, 2010, which the head of the Defendant’s Government Tax Office imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on June 1, 2010 shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 585,99,810 on the Plaintiff on June 10, 201, the imposition of KRW 952,40,550 on the Plaintiff on June 10, 2009, and KRW 791,902,640 on the Second-Term Value-Added Tax in 2009 on the Plaintiff on March 16, 201, and each imposition of KRW 69,605,70 on the First-Term Value-Added Tax in 209 on the Plaintiff on March 16, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 1, 2003, the Plaintiff was mainly engaged in oil wholesale business in Yangju-dong 00-36 (hereinafter referred to as the "main business establishment") in Yangju-si, Yangju-si. On January 17, 2009, the Plaintiff established a branch office in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 000 Mutan 616 (hereinafter referred to as the "branch business establishment").

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff in 2009, when the Plaintiff’s base of added value added tax was increased by 56 times or more after the Plaintiff’s establishment of a branch, and subsequently, (b) conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff; (c) determined that the Plaintiff received a tax invoice without real transactions by using SH Energy, BM Energy, Co., Ltd., Ltd., TP Energy, Co., Ltd., Ltd., TPP Energy, and BA Energy, etc. as the purchaser; and (d) issued a tax invoice without real transactions to 14 companies, and notified the Defendants of the taxation data (hereinafter “each tax invoice of this case”).

C. Accordingly, the Defendants did not deduct the Plaintiff’s input tax amount regarding the tax invoice received from each of the above suppliers, and issued each of the dispositions stated in the purport of the subscription (hereinafter “instant disposition”) including additional tax on each of the instant tax invoices.

D. As to each disposition taken on June 1, 2010 and on June 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on August 2, 2010, and filed the instant lawsuit upon receipt of each request for a review with the National Tax Service on March 16, 201, and upon receipt of each decision of dismissal.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 27, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 12, and 13 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff issued each of the instant tax invoices through the actual oil transaction and received them, but the instant disposition based on the premise that no actual oil transaction was made is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The meaning that the entries in the tax invoice under the Value-Added Tax Act are different from the facts is that the necessary entries in the tax invoice refer to cases where the contents 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 in the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or services (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10, 1996).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 82 through 84, Eul's tax invoice Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 11, and 13 (if any, including each serial number), the Plaintiff's purchase price of the instant oil in connection with the instant disposition constitutes "SH Energy, BM Energy, TP Energy, and BA Energy," which are the purchaser of the instant tax invoice, constitute so-called "processed Product," which does not involve real transactions. Furthermore, TPP was established at the place of business on July 13, 200, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu Office No. 518, and then closed its business on November 30 of the same year, 200, and the Plaintiff did not use the Plaintiff's oil storage tank at each of the above offices, but did not use the leased vehicles at each of the above offices, and the Plaintiff did not use the leased vehicles at each of the above offices at each of the Seoul, Seo-gu 100 WTMM storage facilities.

3) After receiving orders from GO oil under the designated state of oil volume, transportation vehicle number, name of transportation engineer, shipping date, shipping area, and oil refinery, etc., the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) if the purchaser orders oil to purchase oil in the same way, such as oil in the same manner as that of the order, the relevant transportation agent designated by GO oil supplied the oil to dopco and transported the oil to the relevant shipping area; (b) the Plaintiff, upon receipt of a shipment slip signed by the transportation agent from the oil station in the shipping area; and (c) after receiving the shipment slip from the transportation agent, the Plaintiff did not use the oil storage tank or oil transport vehicle, etc., registered or leased by the Plaintiff; (d) there was no fact that the Plaintiff employed the oil transportation engineer; and (e) the Plaintiff did not directly participate in the sale of the oil from the Plaintiff’s place of business or oil storage tank; and (e) the Plaintiff did not directly participate in the sale of the oil from the place of destination to the point of destination; and (e) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff directly purchased the oil from the place of destination.

3. Conclusion

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