2. According to the Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 190,579,800 of the value-added tax for the second period of December 1, 2005 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2005 and the imposition of KRW 952,89,000 of the value-added tax for the second period of December 2004 shall be revoked.

3. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal.

The defendant's second half-year value-added tax (2,086, 492, 370) against the plaintiff on December 1, 2005.

In 204, each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,908, 415, 580 for the first period portion of value-added tax, KRW 190, 141, and 80 for the second period portion of value-added tax in 2004 was revoked (the plaintiff revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 190, 579, 800 for the second period portion of value-added tax in 2004; the second period value-added tax of KRW 952,89,00 for the second period of 204; and the second period of value-added tax of KRW 952,89,00 for the second period of 204; and the second period of value-added tax of KRW 190, 141, and 800 for the second period of value-added tax for the second period of 204 after remanding the plaintiff's respective disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 353,098,716.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's request shall be dismissed.

An appeal by the defendant shall be dismissed.

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition of the respective value-added tax and the corporate tax stated in the purport of the claim, and the first instance court accepted all of the Plaintiff's claims, and the first instance court reversed the Plaintiff's revocation of the imposition of the corporate tax and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff's claims. As to the part of the imposition of the value-added tax, the Plaintiff appealed on the part of the imposition of the corporate tax, and the Defendant appealed on the part of the imposition of the value-added tax, and the final appeal court rejected the Defendant's appeal as to the part of the imposition of the corporate tax

Part was affirmed as winning the plaintiff.

Therefore, only the part of the cancellation of the disposition imposing value-added tax among the claims for this case is the court.

shall be subject to adjudication.

2. Circumstances of the disposition;

가. 원고는2003. 4. 21. 서울종◊구인◊동89-3 ▢▢빌딩에서사업자등록을한후,

2004. 4. 23. 서울 종◊구 봉◊동 141-1 ▣▣빌딩 304호로 사업장을 이전하여 귀금속 제작 및 수출입업을 영위하다가, 2006. 12. 15. 폐업하였다.

나. 원고는 2003. 7. 11.부터 2004. 11. 11.까지 사이에 국▢금은 주식회사 등 8개 법 인으로부터 공급가액 합계 52, 342, 612, 840원 상당의 금지금(金地金, Gold Ingot, 이 사건에서는 '금괴・골드바 등 원재료 상태로서 순도가 1, 000분의 995 이상인 금'을 말한 다)을 매입하여 사용하거나 수출하고, 국▢금은 주식회사 등으로부터 받은 매입세금계 산서를 수취하여, 위 매입세액을 매출세액에서 공제하여 각 과세기간에 부가가치세 환급 신고를 하였다.

C. The defendant is a tax invoice of 46,855,212,420 won, part of the tax invoice of this case from the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office (hereinafter referred to as the "tax invoice of this case"), and the corporation which issued it.

The "Purchase Transaction Agency of this case". The gold bullion subject to the tax invoice of this case is notified that it is a tax invoice for disguised purchase between the actual supplier and the supplier listed in the tax invoice of this case, the input tax amount of the tax invoice of this case is not deducted as to the value-added tax, and the additional tax for receiving documentary evidence shall be applied to the corporate tax. On December 1, 2005, the value-added tax of the second term portion of the tax invoice of this case of 2003, 086, 492, 370, 204, value-added tax of 2,908, 415, 580, 204, value-added tax of the second term portion of the tax invoice of this case of 2,04, value-added tax of 190,579, 800, value-added tax of the second term of 2,004, value-added tax of 89,000,000 won.

In 204, corporate tax 677, 645, and 160 won were imposed respectively (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case only by combining only the imposition disposition of value-added tax and the refusal disposition of refund).

D. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal for a review, but the national tax trial was conducted.

The Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for review on May 14, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence l or 6 (including branch numbers, if any),

chapter 1 and 2 (including each number) of each

3. Whether the instant disposition is legitimate

The Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice after normally purchasing the instant gold bullion from the Plaintiff’s buyer, and paid the purchase price and value-added tax via the bank branch, and both the purchase price and value-added tax were exported to the Hong Kong company located in Hong Kong through normal routes, and the purchase price was paid accurately in the Plaintiff’s deposit account. Therefore, since all the instant gold bullion transactions are normal transactions that correspond to the actual transaction, it is unlawful for the Defendant to impose the instant tax disposition on the sole basis of a few circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant had a bombane company in the extension of the Plaintiff’s transaction company.

(b) Related statutes;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 2002년경부터 2004. 12. 31. 조세특례제한법의 개정 전까지 서울 종◊ 소재 귀금속업체들 사이에서는 부가가치세 영세율 또는 면세 제도를 악용하여, 금지금을 수입한 후 이를 영세율 또는 면세로 여러 단계를 거쳐 유통시키다가 폭탄업체에 이르러 과세금으로 전환시 킨 후, 다시 여러 단계의 도매상을 거쳐 과세로 유통시키다가 수출하면서, 폭탄업체는 부가 가치세를 납부하지 않고, 수출업체는 폭탄업체가 납부하지도 않은 부가가치세를 환급받는 형태의 이른바 폭탄영업이 만연하였다.

(2) The Plaintiff’s representative director, literature, and literature, who graduated from the art university and operated a private teaching institute, newspaper reporters, etc.

From 2001 to December 2002, elementary school special arts activity instructors were established on March 25, 2003, and there was no trade business or gold bullion wholesale.

(3) 이 사건 매입거래처는 국▢금은 주식회사, 대▢금은 주식회사, 삼▢금은 주식회사, 주식회사 하▢금은상사, 주식회사 동▢금은, 주식회사 한▢종합상사 등 6개 업체인데, 이들은 제▢무역, 성▢▢▢에스, ▢콜렉션, 메▢무역, 금▢코리아, 세▢아이피, 렉서스, 나▢골드 등의 전형적인 폭탄업체를 거쳐 이 사건 금지금을 매입하였다・

(4) 이 사건 매입거래처 중 가장 큰 비중을 차지하는(총 매입가액의 80% 이상) 국▢금은 주식회사를 실제 운영하는 이○범은 2008. 8. 14. 서울중앙지방법원에서 폭탄업 체를 통한 금지금 거래를 이용하여 부가가치세 14, 107, 996, 838원을 포탈하였다 는 범 죄사실로 징역 2년 6월에 집행유예 4년 및 벌금 150억 원의 형을 선고받았고, 2008. 11. 13. 그에 대한 피고인 및 검사의 항소가 모두 기각되었다.

그리고 또 다른 주요 매입거래처인 삼▢금은 주식회사를 실제 운영하는 박○춘은, "2001. 4. 3.부터 2004. 5. 10.까지 서▢주얼리 등 45개의 폭탄업체의 실제 운영자들과 공모하여 위 폭탄업체들로부터 금지금을 과세로 매입한 다음 과세도관업체들을 거쳐 폭탄업체에 거래대금(부가가치세 포함)을 송금하여 주고, 위 45개의 폭탄업체 운영자는 당해 업체 명의의 재산을 거의 남겨두지 않는 등의 방법으로 약 740억 원 상당의 부가 가치세를 포탈하였다 는 범죄사실로, 2008. 1. 2. 서울중앙지방법원에서 징역 5년 및 벌금 1, 500억 원을 선고받았고, 이에 불복하여 서울고등법원에 항소를 제기하였으나, 2008. 6. 20. 항소기각 판결을 선고받았다.

(5) All of the instant gold bullion transactions were supplied to the Plaintiff, who is the exporter, through the 2-3-level wholesale company, after going through the 2-3-level wholesale company on the day on which the import declaration was filed by Hong Kong, and then exported to Hong Kong on or after the day of import.

(6) 원고는 이 사건 금지금을 홍콩에 소재한 선▢▢골드와 아▢▢골드라는 회사들에 수출하였다. 문○정은 이 사건으로 서울지방국세청에서 조사를 받을 당시 선▢▢골드와 거래를 하게 된 경위에 관하여 한국 내 미국 보석 감정사 자격 취득자협회협회장으로 있는 우○선으로부터 소개를 받았다. 우○선으로부터 연락처만 받고 선▢▢골드에 전화를 하여 회사의 연혁, 위치, 매입가능 여부 등을 물어보았고, 매입의사가 있으면 국내에서 매입하여 그날 저녁 직접 금지금을 가지고 홍콩으로 가서 선▢▢골드에 찾아 갔으며 선▢▢골드는 중량, 순도 등을 확인한 다음 곧바로 입금을 하여 주었다・ 2003. 12. 이후부터는 공항으로 선▢▢골드의 직원들이 마중을 나와 그들에게 인수증만 받고 금지금을 건네주었고, 대금은 다음날 오전에 송금받았다・ 첫 거래는 전화로만 통화한 후 수출하였기 때문에 계약서 없이 진행되었고, 그 이후 8월경 계약서를 작성하였는데 전체적인 계약은 1년 단위로 하였다・ 몇 번의 거래로 신뢰가 생겨 담보의 확보 등의 조치는 취하지 않았다 는 취지로 진술하였다.

(7) 원고는수출당일의국내시세뿐만아니라국▢시세보다항상낮은가격에이사

The prohibited money was exported.

(8) After expressing the intention of each business in the instant purchasing agency, the Plaintiff deposited gold bullion in advance before receiving the advice. At the present, there are many cases where the Plaintiff was transferred directly to the airport without entering the Plaintiff’s place of business.

(9) Gold bullion has the respective manufacturing, branding, and identification number, respectively, and the plaintiff is the gold bullion of this case.

in purchasing and exporting the product, the name of the manufacturer or brand, the identification number, the net level, etc. of the manufacturer or brand may be verified.

It did not have any record in South Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 10, 14, 16 (including various numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods" is subject to value-added tax.

Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods by all contractual or legal reasons." In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-stage transaction tax, "delivery or transfer" under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of causing the transfer of the right to use and consume the goods regardless of the actual profit gained (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001). In such a case, the issue of whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods as provided for in the Value-Added Tax Act is determined by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the purpose and circumstance of each transaction, the owner of profits, and the payment relationship of prices, etc., of each transaction, and the tax invoice of subparagraph 24 of Article 296 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

위와 같은 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건의 경우 앞서 든 증거들에 의하여, 원고 는 2003. 7. 11.부터 2004. 11. 11.까지 국▢금은 주식회사를 비롯한 8개 법인으로부터 공급가액 합계 52, 342, 612, 840원 상당의 금지금을 각 매입하고 매입 당일 그 각 금지 금을 인도받은 다음 그 대금을 모두 지급하고 국▢금은 주식회사를 비롯한 8개 법인으로부터 그 거래에 따른 세금계산서들을 각 교부받은 사실, 원고는 위 각 금지금을 매입한 직후 그 전부를 홍콩 소재 수입상에게 수출한 사실이 인정되는 이상, 위 각 금지 금이 수입되어 수출되기까지 일련의 전체거래가 모두 하루 혹은 2-3일의 단기간에 이루어지고, 그 중간 단계에 부가가치세가 면제되는 금지금을 매입한 다음 면세추천 받지 아니한 자에게 부가가치세 과세대상이 되는 금지금으로 공급하면서 세금계산서를 작성 • 교부하고 그 부가가치세 상당액을 납부하지 않는 이른바 폭탄업체가 존재하고 있는 점 등의 사정만으로는 이 사건 전체거래 중의 하▢인 이 사건 거래가 명목상의 거래로서 부가가치세 과세대상이 되는 재화의 공급이 아니라고 단정하기는 어렵다 할 것이며, 따라서 이 사건 거래에 따라 수취한 이 사건 세금계산서 역시 그 계산서상의 공급자와 실제 공급자가 다르게 기재된 것으로서 '사실과 다른 세금계산서'에 해당한다고 보기는 어렵다.

(2) On the other hand, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's taking of the gold bullion of this case out of Korea is invalid under Article 108 of the Civil Code because it is merely a formal export aimed at the conversion of the tax-free gold bullion into the tax-free gold bullion by abusing the zero-rate tax rate system and the input tax deduction to the exporters rather than normal goods, and merely by using a wide-scale coal company for the purpose of the illegal acquisition of the national tax-free gold bullion revenue. The rejection of the application for refund by denying the tax-free gold bullion deduction in order to prevent damage to the State caused by such unlawful act is legitimate, and even if the tax-free gold bullion refund should be made, the state has the right to claim compensation equivalent to the amount, so the plaintiff's act of trade as above is anti-social, and thus the plaintiff's intentional declaration is invalid under Article 103 of the Civil Code or a trade with prior conspiracy for the purpose of tax evasion. However, the defendant's assertion that the abuse of the zero-rate tax rate system should not be allowed.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, different taxes that the instant tax invoice was prepared differently from the actual transaction of the supplier.

The defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that it constitutes an invoice is illegal;

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant's appeal against the second-term value-added tax for 2003 and the first-term value-added tax for 2004 is dismissed for lack of reason. Following the plaintiff's amendment of the purport of claim in the court of first instance, the defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second-term value-added tax for 2004 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2005, imposition of value-added tax for 190,579,800 won for the second-term value-added tax for 204 and the disposition of refusal of refund for the second-term value-added tax for 204 shall be revoked in entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.