It is difficult to deem that the receipt of a tax invoice constitutes a case of receipt with knowledge that it is false.

It is difficult to view that the issuance of the tax invoice of this case by the customer constitutes a case where false evidence was received with the knowledge that it was false, and there is no other evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an unfair method under each subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the

Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of Framework Act on National Taxes

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

AA Energy Corporation

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

October 24, 2013

November 14, 2013

"The date of the imposition disposition of the attached Table 1 to the defendant's Schedule 1 for the plaintiff on the date of each disposition is revoked that exceeds the amount of each tax stated in the same Table of the imposition disposition of the same Do." 2. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

"The date on which the defendant imposed the attached Table 1 on the plaintiff on the date of each disposition" shall revoke each part exceeding the amount of tax stated in the "amount of tax on the same Do Governor" column of each disposition on the same Do Governor on the date of each disposition. The reasons therefor are as follows.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. From May 1, 2006, the Plaintiff was engaged in oil retail business (oil station) from OO-si 891-247, and was issued each tax invoice (hereinafter "each of the tax invoices of this case") as shown in Table 2 attached hereto from 1, 2007 to 2, 2009 from 18 companies (hereinafter "each of the transaction parties of this case") and reported and paid the value-added tax after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount at the time of filing the value-added tax return for each of the taxable periods. (b) The director of the Central Tax Office of China conducted a corporate integration investigation with the Plaintiff. From January 1, 2007 to February 2, 2009, the Plaintiff omitted sales of OO sales revenue of this case as listed in the following table, and confirmed that the supplier received a different tax invoice from each of the transaction parties of this case and notified the Defendant thereof.

Taxation Period

Amount omitted in sales (won)

1, 2007

OOO

2, 2007

OOO

1, 2008

OOO

2, 2008

OOO

1, 2009

OOO

2, 2009

OOO

Total

OOO

C. Accordingly, the Defendant reported the tax base in an unjust manner on the portion which deducts the amount of the tax invoice received from each of the parties to the instant transaction as the input tax amount. On December 1, 2010, each of the instant tax invoices did not deduct the relevant input tax amount from the output tax amount, and thus, on December 1, 2010, the Defendant stated that on December 1, 2007, the Plaintiff included the value-added tax (including the additional tax) for a period of one year (including the additional tax), two years (including the additional tax), one-year value-added tax (including the additional tax), two years (including the additional tax), two-year value-added tax (including the additional tax), one-year value-added tax (including the additional tax), one-year amount for one year (including the additional tax), two years (2009), one-year amount for the value-added tax (including the additional tax), one-year amount for two years (2009), one-year (207,O208) corporate tax (including the additional tax) for each business year.

D. After that, the Defendant found that the assessment of the additional tax on the value-added tax was erroneous, and ex officio on December 15, 2010, ex officio reduced the amount of the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2007, the amount of the value-added tax for the second term in 2007, and the amount of the value-added tax for the first term portion in 2008, respectively, and increased the amount of the value-added tax for the second term in 2008.

E. On December 20, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal for a trial on December 20, 2011.

11.25 The above appeal was dismissed.

F. On February 15, 2013, the Defendant issued a payment notice again stating the grounds for the calculation of each of the above value-added tax and the corporate tax (the detailed imposition details of each value-added tax and the corporate tax are stated in the separate sheet 1 attached Table 1 attached hereto; hereinafter the same shall apply). "each disposition imposing value-added tax and the corporate tax shall be imposed," and each disposition imposing value-added tax and the corporate tax shall be referred to as "each disposition imposing value-added tax," and each of the above dispositions shall be referred to as "each disposition imposing value-added tax," and "each of the above dispositions shall be referred to as "each disposition imposing value-added tax," and "No dispute over the grounds for recognition," and "No dispute over the facts of Gap, 2, 3, 8, 20, 25, 50, 61, 67, 73, 79, 85, 95, 105, 118 through 14 (hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each disposition of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

(1) As to the imposition of value-added tax

① Of the instant tax invoices, the remaining tax invoices except for each tax invoice issued by (State)CC Energy, (State)DEnergy, (State) EE, (State)F Energy, and (State)G Energy Competition are identical to the actual supplier, and thus, do not constitute a false tax invoice.

② Even if each of the above tax invoices was written differently by the supplier, the Plaintiff did not know that the actual supplier of the oil was different from the entries of the supplier in connection with each of the tax invoices in this case, and was not negligent in not knowing it.

(2) As to the imposition of additional tax

The omission of the Plaintiff’s sales revenue is due to a mistake in the sales office, and the Plaintiff does not receive each of the instant tax invoices with the knowledge that they are false tax invoices, and thus does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff under-reported the tax base by an improper method stipulated in Article 47-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As to the imposition of value-added tax

(A) Whether each of the instant tax invoices constitutes a false tax invoice

1) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 45 of Eul, the facts that each tax invoice issued by (ju), DDR, (ju), DDR, (ju), FF Energy, and (ju)GG Energy Games is a false tax invoice, and the plaintiff does not dispute this point.

2) Determination as to each of the tax invoices issued and delivered by HH energy, (State II Energy, (State) J Energy, (State KK Energy, and (State LL Energy)

Article 17(2)1-2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that an input tax amount shall not be deducted from the output tax amount in cases where the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. The meaning that the entries of a tax invoice are different from the facts. In light of the purport of Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where the ownership of income, profit, calculation, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely 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 is liable to pay taxes, and where the necessary entries of a tax invoice do not coincide with those of the parties to the transaction contract, etc. prepared between the parties to the goods or service, notwithstanding the formal entries of the transaction contract, etc. made between them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu617, Dec. 10,

In light of the following circumstances, the plaintiff is not directly supplied with oil from the above transaction partners, but provided with a third party, and it is reasonable to view that the above transaction partners have provided necessary data, such as tax invoices, etc. for real transactions between the plaintiff and the third party, and have played the role of mediating real transactions, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 32, 33, 36, 37, and 42.

① As a result of the data survey on H energy, the reported oil storage facilities did not have any actual oil, etc., and the amount deposited at the selling place showed a typical form of money laundering to avoid financial tracking, such as withdrawal in cash after account transfer. The transaction with the Plaintiff was confirmed as a processed transaction between 207 and 1 January 2008, including 22th 2007, when the transaction with the Plaintiff was conducted with the Plaintiff.

2)The representative of the II Energy and the person related to MaM, EN, EN, EP was convicted of having issued the processed tax invoices to many business partners including the Plaintiff in Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2009Gohap247.

③ As a result of the data survey on J-Energy, there was no oil in the oil storage facility sentenced, there was no trace of actually doing business at the place of business, most of the funds were transferred over two and three occasions, and the intent to avoid tracking funds, such as cash withdrawal, was found to have been issued for the entire amount of transactions during the two years in 2007 and the one year in 2008, which is the period in which the transactions with the Plaintiff were made with the Plaintiff.

(iv)As a result of the K Energy Data Survey, there was no employee permanently stationed in the office and did not actually engage in the business. On March 2008, there was no entry of tank lorri vehicle in the oil reservoir, and after having entered the oil reservoir, there was no entry of tank lorri vehicle into the tank lor vehicle, and the full amount of the transaction with the Plaintiff during the first 2008 taxable period was determined as a processed transaction.

(5)The result of the data research on LL Energy showed that only one female employee was employed in the workplace, but does not actually engage in the business. There was no oil in the reported oil storage facility, and the full amount of the transaction with the Plaintiff was determined as a processing transaction.

3) (주)BB에너지, (주)QQQ라인, RRR(주), (주)SSS에너지, TT주유소, (주)UU, (주)VV에너지, (주)WW석유화학, (주)XXX로부터 발행・교부받은 각 세금계산서에 관한 판단

In light of the following circumstances, each tax invoice issued and delivered by each of the above transaction parties to the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the entries of the supplier are different from the fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the entries of each tax invoice issued and delivered by each transaction party to the Plaintiff are different from the fact, in light of the following circumstances:

1)B Energy is suspected of having issued a false tax invoice during the 1st and 2nd 2nd 2007 period based on the results of data research, and related persons, such as a corporation and representative, were accused, but was disposed of at the Posting Office of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office.

② (주)QQQ라인은 2003년 2기부터 2007년 1기까지의 과세기간 동안 실물거래 없이 세금계산서를 교부한 혐의로 그 대표자가 고발조치 되어 인천지방법원 2008고단5274호로 유죄판결을 받았으나, 위 판결 이유에 2007년 1기 과세기간에 있었던 원고와의 거래는 허위세금계산서 교부대상 등에 포함되어 있지 않고, 원고와의 2007년 2기 과세기간 동안의 거래에 대하여도 허위의 세금계산서 발행 사실을 인정할 아무런 자료가 없다. 또한 피고가 제출한 자료상혐의 조사서는 그 조사대상기간이 2008. 1. 1.부터 2008. 3. 8.까지의 것으로 2007년 1, 2기에 있었던 원고와의 거래와는 전혀 관계가 없을 뿐만 아니라, 위 기간 동안의 거래는 정상거래로 확인되었다.

③ As a result of data research on RRs, transactions with the Plaintiff were conducted as an actual transaction, which was partially omitted in sales.

④ The SS Energy was suspected of having issued a false tax invoice to a customer, such as the Instigates Gas station, after the 88.2% of the sales was determined as a processed transaction in the first taxable period in January 2008. As a result of the data research, 98.5% of the sales during the second taxable period in February 2008 was verified as a processed transaction, and was charged. However, the submitted data alone cannot be confirmed that the transaction with the Plaintiff during the first taxable period in January 2008 was a processed transaction.

⑤ There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff issued and delivered a false tax invoice in the case of TT gas station and (State)U.

6) As a result of the investigation into V Energy, the Plaintiff’s portion of the transaction was determined as a disguised and fictitious transaction. However, according to the evidence No. 26, it can be seen that the Plaintiff did not vindicate for the reason that the Plaintiff was under appeal, and even based on the evidence No. 26, the tax invoice amounting to 51.4% of the total sales tax invoice issued by the said company was false; and the remaining portion of the tax invoice amounting to 72% of the total sales tax invoice of February 2009 was the tax invoice amounting to 72% of the total sales tax invoice issued by the said company, and it cannot be ruled out that there was a possibility that some of the actual sales with the Plaintiff was recognized as having been actually engaged in the business activities as above, and it cannot be ruled out that there was a possibility that the above company could actually purchase the goods from the third party’s oil and supply them to the Plaintiff.

7) WW Petroleum chemical was identified as a processing transaction with several transaction partners including the Plaintiff through data research and was accused of having issued a false tax invoice by the relevant persons including the corporation and the representative, etc. but was subject to a disposition that was not suspected of being committed by the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office.

8) The party accounting at issue was determined as material related to the return of value-added tax for two years in 2009 and accused, but the transaction with the Plaintiff became final and conclusive as a processing transaction, and the investigation report and accusation report on suspicion submitted by the Defendant was related to the transaction with the Plaintiff during the second period in 2009, as it was about the first period in 2010.

“4) Accordingly, each of the instant tax invoices (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoices”) issued by the supplier, among the instant tax invoices, from (A)CC energy, (a) HH energy, (b)D Energy, (a) Jeju J Energy, ( Jeju) KK Energy, (b) KE, (c) GF Energy, (a) GG Energy Games, and (b)LL Energy (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant transaction parties”), shall be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice, which is written by the supplier in falsity, and (b) whether the Plaintiff is a party to good faith and negligence.

1) Unless there is any special circumstance that the actual supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice either 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 cannot deduct or refund the relevant input tax amount, 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 2002Du227

2) In light of the above legal principles, whether the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case and was negligent in not knowing the fact that the Plaintiff was unaware of the name of the tax invoice of this case, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it solely on the basis of each statement of evidence Nos. 4 through 117, 119, 120. There is no other evidence

Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff was aware that the actual counterparty of the transaction was not a party to the instant transaction, or was negligent in not knowing the aforementioned facts, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole: (a) evidence Nos. 6, 12, 18, 23, 32, 37, 43, 59, 65, 71, 87, 87, 98, 103; and (b) evidence Nos. 10 and 11.

① Since complicated supply structure of the oil industry and non-material transactions using tax-free oil have emerged as a social problem since before the times, if an oil supplier is an ordinary gas station operator, it is necessary to pay special attention to whether the oil supplier is the actual supplier. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s representative director KimY operated the gas station in the ancient city from July 20, 197 to December 31, 2001, with the Plaintiff’s representative director KimY operated the gas station in the name of the oil station in the ancient city from July 20, 1997 to December 31, 201, and operated the gas station again from September 1, 2006 to the name of the oil station in the territory of the oil station. In light of the past experience, KimY seems to have been 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 The Plaintiff’s shipment slips delivered at the time of receiving oil from each of the instant transaction parties appear to have considerably different entries, such as the type of the shipment slips that are normally issued by the oil refining company, and the date, time, temperature, and density of the shipment, and there are cases where the order sheet or the delivery place is not designated as the Plaintiff at the time of receiving oil from the oil transport vehicle, and it is deemed that there was sufficient circumstances to suspect that the instant transaction party was not the actual supplier.

③ The Plaintiff mainly obtained all documents, such as the petroleum sales business registration certificate, the business registration certificate, and the copy of passbook from the clients of the instant case, and transacted with the clients of the instant case. One name was issued by a number of clients. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff, while commencing the transaction through Durler, had conducted on-site verification or telephone confirmation as to whether the Plaintiff’s business was located in the relevant company.

④ It is difficult to find that the Plaintiff was negligent on the ground that the Plaintiff confirmed the business registration certificate, permit certificate, etc. of the customer at issue of the instant case and remitted oil payment to the corporate account, on the sole basis of the fact that the customer at issue was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not the supplier of the oil

(2) As to the imposition of additional tax

(A) According to Articles 47-2(2) and 47-3(2)1 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, where a taxpayer under-reported the tax base by an improper method (referring to a method prescribed by the Presidential Decree as violating the duty to report all or part of the tax base or the amount of national tax on the basis of concealing or pretending the fact that serves as the basis for calculating the tax base or the amount of national tax) is difficult to view that the Plaintiff may not be deemed to have obtained any false tax invoices or deduct the amount equivalent to 40/100 of the amount calculated by multiplying the calculated tax amount from the amount of tax to be paid from the amount of tax to be refunded. Further, Article 27(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22038, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the Plaintiff may not be deemed to have obtained any false or false entry of the books, such as double entry of the books of account or fraudulent documentation from 70 days before the Plaintiff’s entry of the issue or fraudulent account books (3).

(3) Justifiable tax amount

(A) Each value-added tax;

" 앞서 본 바와 같이 (주)BB에너지, (주)QQQ라인, RRR(주), (주)SSS에너지, TT주유소, (주)UU, (주)VV에너지, (주)WW석유화학, (주)XXX 발행의 각 세금계산서는 공급자의 기재가 사실과 다른 세금계산서라고 인정하기 어려워, 피고가 원고에 대하여 부가가치세를 부과하면서 위 거래처들이 발행・교부한 각 세금계산서의 매입세액을 불공제한 것은 위법한바, 위 각 세금계산서의 매입세액을 공제하여 계산한 각 부가가치세액은 별지 도표1정당세액'란 해당 부분 기재와 같다.", (나) 각 가산세

The Defendant’s imposition of the penalty tax of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff’s imposition of the penalty tax of this case under the premise that the Plaintiff was underreporting the tax base by unjust means for the portion which was deducted from the sales omission of oil and the amount of the tax invoice received from the customer at the issue of this case. The penalty tax calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff was underreporting the tax base is illegal, and the amount of the penalty tax of this case calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff was underreporting the above part is underreporting the relevant part is identical to the corresponding part (the tax invoice issued by the transaction parties other than the transaction parties at the issue of this case cannot be deemed as a tax invoice different from the fact as seen earlier, so the pertinent input tax deduction portion is not subject to the penalty tax for underreporting, and this part is also reflected in this part), and (c) therefore, “the date of imposition of the attached Table 1” on each date on which the Defendant imposed the attached Table 3 is unlawful

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.