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

A. The plaintiff company is a corporation established on December 17, 2001 for the purpose of running the wholesale and retail business of precious metals and yeast, and export and import business.

B. From January 17, 2002 to December 31, 2002, the Plaintiff Company imported 34 occasions from Japan ○○○○○ KI, and 56 times in total from Australia ○○○ ○○ ○○ Round to December 31, 2002, the following: (a) imported gold bullion 3,040 g (hereinafter “instant gold bullion”); and (b) supplied it to the Plaintiff Company, ○○○○○○○○○, Co., Ltd., Ltd., ○○○○○, Co., Ltd., Ltd., and ○○○ ○○○○ (hereinafter “instant gold bullion”); and (c) supplied them to the instant sales places. In indicating the said title, the Plaintiff Company omitted.

Details of purchase and sale in 2002

Country of Import

Sales Office

Number of Goods

Purchase Price

Sales

Japan

○ ○○ RIKI

-

790km

9,972,263,232 won

·

Australia ○○-R

-

2,250km

28,207,90,718

·

-

○○○ Ballast

1,730km

-

2,353,740,000 won

-

○ ○ Roster International

950km

-

12,332,200,000 won

-

○○ Commercial

200kg

-

2,663,700,000

-

○ ○

160km

-

2,340,500,000 won

Consolidateds

-

-

38,180,163,950 won

39,690,140,000 won

C. The Plaintiff Company did not collect the amount equivalent to value-added tax by applying the zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act on the grounds that it presented a written confirmation of purchase of raw materials for foreign exchange earnings issued by the head of foreign exchange bank (hereinafter “written confirmation of purchase”). Accordingly, even though it reported the first and second half-year value-added tax in 2002, it was refunded the amount of tax already paid because it was sold at zero-rate tax equivalent to the sales amount arising from the transaction of the instant gold bullion.

D. The Defendant denied the application of zero-rate tax rate for the instant gold bullion transaction on October 10, 2005 on the grounds that the instant seller did not actually export the instant gold bullion, and that the Plaintiff Company knew or could have known such circumstances, and notified the Plaintiff Company of KRW 1,870,620,70 for the first quarter of 2002, value-added tax for the second quarter of 2002, and KRW 3,289,097,50 for the second quarter of 2002 (hereinafter “instant taxation”).

D. On November 23, 2005, the Plaintiff Company filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on November 23, 2005 under the Presidential Decree No. 2006Da1017, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on May 25, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 11-1 to 13, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff supplied gold bullion by applying zero tax rate to the instant sales offices based on a purchase confirmation lawfully issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank, and was entirely unaware of the defect in the process of issuing the purchase confirmation or of whether the supplied gold bullion has been actually exported. As such, the instant taxation disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Omission

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Details of the incorporation of the Plaintiff Company

(A) The representative director of the Plaintiff Company, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, was employed by metal refining company in 1983 and was engaged in the futures trading of non-ferrous metals and precious metals, etc., and retired from office around August 10, 1995. From November 1995 to July 1996, ○○ Trade Co., Ltd., which was closed around 1996. Since October 196, 196, ○○○○○○○○○ Building ○○○○○○○○○○ Building 412, which was operated by changing the type of precious metal import agent after the IMF foreign exchange crisis, and operated the sales agent by June 2, 2002.

(B) The ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Construction, which was known from around 1996, established the Plaintiff Company on December 17, 2001, on the recommendation of the ○○○○○○ Construction, the representative director of the said ○○○○ Construction, and had it conduct gold bullion transactions with the instant sales office, including the ○○○○ Ballast, after establishing the Plaintiff Company on December 17, 201.

(2) The ownership of the instant seller, including the ○○ Ballast, etc.

(A) Around September 2001, the ○○ Ballast, a gold bullion wholesaler established under 305 of the Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○○○○○ Building, which was jointly invested in order to operate so-called so-called wide carbon business. From September 2001, the two above two persons run the gold bullion, and thereafter, ○○○○○, a representative director of the ○○○ Marsh, was registered in the form of the representative director of the Plaintiff and importer company, and then purchased gold bullion from the Plaintiff and then sold it at zero tax rate again to the ○○○○, a small business entity, a small business entity, and the above small business entities were either evaded the sales of gold bullion or evaded the sales of gold bullion through the ○○○ and the value-added tax market, which is the large business entity managed by this ○ Kong, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “tax evasion business without permission”).

(B) The early 000,000 won was monthly paid until September 2002, before the 002 decision-making process, and the 00,000 won was 50,000 won, and the 00,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won, and the 00,000 won was 20,000 won was 10,000 won was 10,000 won was 20,000 won was 10,000 won was 20,000 won was 20,000 won was 20,00,000 won was 20,000 won.

(C) The ○○ commercial person and the ○○ Switter’s personal person are gold bullion importers or tax-related corporations operated for the purpose of the ○○ Military Business, a gold bullion importer or tax-related corporation with the office of the ○○○○○○○ Office, and the ○○○○ Office is a tax-related corporation operated by the ○○○○○○○○ Office.

(3) Transaction process, etc. of the gold bullion of this case

(A) From January 17, 2002 to February 20, 2002, the Plaintiff Company supplied gold bullion only to ○○○○ Ballast, from February 22, 2002, to ○○○○○○, from May 31, 2002, to ○○○○○○, and from July 12, 2002, from July 12, 2002, the Plaintiff Company supplied gold bullion to ○○○○○○○○○ personal person (No. 18), all of the gold bullions were traded by ○○○○.

(B) On January 10, 2002, the Plaintiff Company entered into an import of gold bullion with a profit rate of 1.5% for the volume imported from ○○ Ballast and with a rate of 1.3% for the volume imported. On May 30, 2002, the profit rate was reduced by 0.5% for the period of April 7, 2003, 1% for the period of June 30, 2003, 0.5% for the period of June 30, 2003, 0.35% for the period of August 13, 2003, and 0.15% for the period of August 18, 2003.

(C) Between January 17, 2002 and January 31, 2002, 2002, the export contract entered into with Hong Kong, which is the basis document for the purchase confirmation issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank, was prepared in a false manner.

(D) Meanwhile, in a case where normal gold bullion is imported and sold in a successive manner, an importer or a seller thereafter may get refund of customs duties paid at the time of import by issuing a divisional certificate (hereinafter referred to as "pro rata") pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export; Article 10(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1994 of Apr. 5, 2007); Article 4-3-1 of the Public Notice Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export; Article 4-3-1 of the same Act, etc.

(E) In the form of the ○○○ Ballast, the representative director of the instant gold bullion was used by the Plaintiff Company for the 1,730km of the instant gold bullion from the Plaintiff Company through the process as seen in the said Paragraph (2). The remainder of 1,310km was used for the value-added wing, and was used for the act of evading value-added tax in the same way through the ○○ ○○ Scurter International, ○○○ and ○○○○○.

(F) From March 26, 2002 to December 23, 2002, 17, 2002, ○○○○○○○○ was requested to provide the instant gold bullion a total of KRW 948,00,000,00 of the funds necessary for the import clearance, etc. of the instant gold bullion. The said money was transferred to the head of Tong, such as ○○○○ Line, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○, which are his relatives with the instant gold bullion.

(G) The Plaintiff Company imported the volume of ○○ day every time in relation to the transaction with the ○○ Ballast.

(4) Other

(A) In the case of gold bullion, the gold bullion, which is sealed with the domestic market price higher than the international market price, accounts for 66% of the domestic circulation volume. Accordingly, in order to meet the price of gold bullion regularly imported, various irregular transactions, such as the breadth and coal trade, are crossing since 199, in order to meet the price of gold bullion closely imported.

(B) Article 106-3(11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322, Dec. 31, 2004) newly introduced a tax-free gold bullion wholesaler's security provision system. The Plaintiff discontinued the import of gold bullion after May 2004.

(C) On January 28, 2008, ○ Chuncheon was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment and fines of KRW 170 billion for criminal facts, such as the act of evading value-added tax, in collusion with the Defendant and ○○gle, Kim ○, Kim ○, Cho Il-il, ○○○ Day, etc., including the Seoul Central District Court No. 2007Kahap866, 2007Kahap1028 (Joint), and the violation of the Bur rate on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax), and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years and fines of KRW 170 billion for the act of evading value-added tax as an importing enterprise (in the case of Seoul High Court No. 2008No385, Jul. 24, 2008, the appellate court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and fines of KRW 17 billion).

[Ground for recognition] The evidence Nos. 4-1 through 6, the evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 7, 10-1 through 56, each of the evidence Nos. 11-1 through 13, A, 12, and 15-1 through 7, A’s evidence Nos. 14, 3 through 8, 15 through 22, 29 through 46, each of the evidence Nos. 9, 10-1 through 11-2, Eul’s evidence Nos. 27-1 through 13, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 28-1 through 28-3, and the purport of the whole testimony, testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the witness at the trial

D. Determination

(1) Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827, Dec. 30, 2002) provide that the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of exported goods, and that an entrepreneur shall also apply to the goods supplied through a local letter of credit or a purchase confirmation as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. Meanwhile, the application of zero-rate tax under the value-added tax system is recognized only for exports to prevent double taxation, and it is recognized as exceptional and limited only for domestic consumption in line with the national policy purpose of encouraging foreign exchange and collecting value-added taxes to the extent that it does not impair foreign exchange management and collection order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu409, Dec. 27, 1983); in light of the purport of the zero-rate tax rate application and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, where a supplier of goods in collusion with the buyer and sells the goods with the knowledge of a false purchase.

(2) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, ① the Plaintiff’s ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap32252, Dec. 20, 2007]

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

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity established on December 14, 2001 and from January 2002, which had been engaged in the business of importing gold bullion (referring to gold in the state of raw materials, such as gold bullion, gold bullion, and dud, with a loss of at least 95/100 in this case) from Japan and Hoju as follows, and supplying it to exporters, processing companies, exporters, etc.

Table 1 of the record of sales in the year 2002

(2) An incorporated entity;

Ministry of Strategy and Finance

Number of Goods

Amount of each entry;

Amount of each withdrawal;

Japan ○○

790 kilograms

9,972,263,232 won

Australia ○○

2,250 kilograms

28,207,90,718

( Note)OOO

1,730 kilograms

2,353,740,000 won

(m)○○ person;

950 kilograms

12,332,200,000 won

(m)○○ commercial

20 kilograms

2,663,700,000

(m)○○○

160 kilograms

2,340,500,000 won

Consolidateds

38,180,163,950 won

39,690,140,000 won

B. After paying customs duties and value-added tax at the time of the import of gold bullion, the Plaintiff issued sales tax invoices by applying the zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act through a certificate of purchase of raw materials for foreign exchange received from the head of a foreign exchange bank, and a certificate of receipt of goods, and issued a certificate of tax payment for the customs duties already paid after filing a value-added tax return to the seller. As for the customs duties to be refunded, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of tax payment for basic raw materials (division certificate) to the seller.

C. On October 10, 2005, the Defendant issued a false tax invoice in collusion with the Plaintiff’s seller for the purpose of evading taxes, and issued a false tax invoice to the Plaintiff for the purpose of disguised zero-rate sales, and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,870,650,70 for the first term portion of value-added tax in the year 2002, and KRW 3,289,097,50 for the second term portion of value-added tax in the year 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on November 23, 2005 as the National Tax Tribunal No. 2006No1017, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on May 25, 2006.

Each entry (including each number) in Gap 1,2,11, and Eul 1

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually traded the same contents as the tax invoice of this case, and did not participate in the solicitation for unfair refund of value-added tax. The Plaintiff’s conspiracy with a trader to unlawfully refund value-added tax is merely the Defendant’s trend without any evidence. The Plaintiff did not intend to evade taxes jointly with gold bullion companies and did not know that the Plaintiff did not engage in the other company’s act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful, based on the premise that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice or the Plaintiff knew or could have known of it.

B. Relevant statutes

/ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 11 Application of the Age Tax Rates

(1) The tax rates of the Cabinet shall apply to the supply of goods or services in the following subparagraphs:

1. Exported goods;

Article 17 Tax Payment Amount

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a "necessary entry item") is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall

Article 21. Determination and correction

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

] Gu Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19215 of Feb. 9, 2006)

Article 24 Scope of Exportation

(1) Exports under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall be as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457, Dec. 31, 2001>

1. Shipping domestic goods (including the fishery products collected by Korean vessels) from a foreign country;

(2) Goods exported under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall be deemed to include the following goods: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17186, Dec. 31, 1999; Presidential Decree No. 17176, Mar. 31, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 17456, Dec. 30, 20

1. Goods supplied by an entrepreneur through a local letter of credit or written confirmation of purchase as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy: Provided, That gold bullion supplied under a written confirmation of purchase

【The former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 499 on March 17, 2006)

Article 9-2 Scope of Local Letter of Credit, etc.

(2) The term "purchase confirmations provided for in Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree and Article 26 (1) 2-2 of the Decree means confirmations issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank under Articles 38-2 and 116 (14) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act within 20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods or services belongs, corresponding to a local letter of credit referred to in paragraph (1) and on which the documents, such as the export letters of credit

x. Basic Value-Added Tax Act

11-24-9 Goods supplied under a local letter of credit or letter of approval for purchase.

Tax rates of zero shall apply to goods supplied under a local letter of credit or a purchase approval as provided for in the Foreign Trade Act, regardless of whether such goods are used for export after they are supplied (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1583, Oct. 1, 1998).

/ former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7577 of July 13, 2005)

Article 106 (Special Taxation of Value-Added Tax on Gold Prohibitions

(1) The value-added tax shall be exempted until June 30, 2005 pursuant to the classification under paragraph (3) for the supply of gold bullion falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereafter referred to as "tax-free gold bullion" in this Article), which is bullion equipped with the form, net altitude, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "gold bullion" in this

1. Gold bullion supplied by the wholesalers and refiners of gold bullion prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "gold bullion wholesalers, etc.") to the gold craftsmen, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "gold craftsmen, etc.") after receiving tax-free recommendation from a person prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to

2. Gold bullion supplied or redeemed by the gold bullion wholesalers, etc. and financial institutions prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as "financial institutions") to the financial institutions recommended for tax-free gold bullion trading;

3. Gold metals supplied under the futures trading under the Futures Trading Act: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where any person other than the gold craftsmen, etc. (including the financial institutions) takes over the actual objects of

(2) The value-added tax shall be exempted until June 30, 2005 on the gold bullion imported by the gold craftsmen, etc. and financial institutions after receiving a tax-free import recommendation from the persons prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "the head of the tax

(3) Special cases under the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to the tax-free gold metals under paragraph (1) pursuant to any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a financial institution supplies tax-free gold metals, Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply;

2. Where any entrepreneur other than financial institutions supplies the tax-free gold bullion, the relevant entrepreneur shall be deemed the value-added tax taxable entrepreneur and subject to the application of the Value-Added Tax Act. In this case, the value-added tax amount borne at the time of purchasing the relevant gold bullion in connection with the supply of the tax-free gold bullion shall not be deemed the input tax amount eligible for the deduction under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the tax-free gold bullion gold metals manufactured and supplied by the gold bullion refiner and the value-added tax amount borne by the relevant entrepreneur in connection with the purchase

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) In 1983, ○○○○, a metal refining company, entered the Plaintiff’s representative director, and was engaged in overseas business and futures business until he retires in 195, and was in charge of precious metal business from 1992 to 1995. This ○○ established the Plaintiff corporation by introducing △△△○, a corporation with which he had been well aware of from that date, to 1992.

(2) The OV01 ○○○, which is the basic document of the purchase approval, submitted by the △△△ corporation between January 17, 2002 and January 31, 2002, is based on the export contract with the Hong Kong W○○ Co., Ltd., but the above documents are false purchase approval.

(3) All the purchasing places of gold bullion sold by the Plaintiff are materials, and all the purchasing places of gold bullion purchased from the said purchasing places were accused of tax evasion by all the competent tax offices.

(4) For gold bullion, various changes, including value-added tax evasion, etc., are crossing in order to address the price of gold bullion, the domestic market price of which is higher than the international market price, accounts for 66% of the domestic circulation, and accordingly, the price of gold bullion, which has been regularly imported, takes place.

(5) The Plaintiff suspended the import of gold bullion after May 2004 (from April 1, 2005, the obligation to provide security for tax payment to the wholesalers of tax-free gold bullion under Article 106-3 (11) of the Tax Special Taxation Restriction Act was enforced).

(6) In the event that the gold bullion import is not enough now, this ○○○ requested a loan to the △△△△ corporation, and the lending title holder is this △△, ○○, ○○, ○○, and △△, △△, etc., and this △△, △△, and this △△, △△, etc., is all the relatives of △△,

(7) In the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006 Gohap 1073, 1073, 1096, and 1141 Decided January 12, 2007, "the defendant Han-○, Kim○, and Kang-○" is established or taken over by the company, etc. trading gold bullion directly or by using the company, etc. that trades gold bullion, or by using the relative, relative, and a person who has no economic ability, etc., and formed a gold bullion trader by posting the gold bullion at each stage, such as import, domestic distribution, export, etc., and then forming a gold bullion trader.

First, in the case where gold bullion is imported and sold in a successive manner at the import stage, an importer or a seller thereafter can get refund of customs duties paid at the time of import by allowing each purchaser to obtain a certificate of division of import declaration (hereinafter referred to as "certificate of division") under Article 9(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export, Article 10(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 4-3-1 of the Public Notice on the Handling of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export, etc., but the above certificate of division is written in detail. However, since the contents of the certificate are input through the Korea Customs Service-related computer system, the detailed flow of the transaction can be grasped rapidly and accurately, so that the certificate of division is not normally issued to the last transferee, thereby avoiding the evasion of value-added taxes by the tax authority by preventing the taxpayer from being issued to the last transferee.

Second, prior to June 30, 2003, an export approval letter was issued illegally using a forged export contract with a person with no economic capacity. After July 1, 2003, an import company which has obtained approval of the qualifications for the trade of gold bullion and actually controls the defendant with zero-rate or zero-rate purchase contract or a pre-stage purchase company using the qualifications for the trade of gold bullion, and thus, it is impossible to pay the value-added tax in reality by repeatedly purchasing gold bullion at a price lower than the purchase price and supplying gold bullion at a price lower than the purchase price. On the other hand, it is impossible to pay the value-added tax from the beginning without reporting the tax base and tax amount under the Value-Added Tax Act, or even if it is reported, it is difficult to directly or indirectly withdraw the balance of the tax amount collected for the trade to the company's account and then make it difficult for the other party to directly or indirectly purchase the gold bullion, and then, it is difficult for the other party to the tax investigation to directly or indirectly withhold the sales amount of gold bullion in the domestic market.

Finally, at the export stage, exporters can finally realize profits from the evasion of value-added tax only after two gold bullion exporters have evaded value-added tax by such unlawful means as above by a bombing company. Thus, exporters would purchase and export gold bullion over which immediately preceding value-added tax has been evaded by a bombing company through the above bombing company operated by the defendant, etc., but such trade is the most lawful purchase and export by the above bombing company. However, the defendant et al. is determined in advance for the transaction of gold bullion between the bombing company and the exporting company, and thus the actual owner of the income, profit, calculation, or profit of the transaction is not the defendant et al., and thus the exporter is not the exporter, and thus the exporter is not the exporter, thus the tax invoice prepared in the process of purchasing the exported goods is different from the fact. In this case, even though the exporter could not receive a refund of value-added tax by purchasing the exported goods, the exporter would obtain criminal profits by unfairly purchasing the value-added tax.

In collusion with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, Dong-won, etc. in a successive manner, found the Defendants guilty of the facts constituting the crime that the imported company, including (a) the (b) the (b) the (c) the (b) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (d) the (c) the (c) the (d) the (c) the (c) the (c) the (d) the (

Each entry (including each number) in subparagraphs 1 through 13, subparagraphs 1 and 27, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) Unless there are special circumstances such as: (a) whether gold bullion supplied by a supplier of gold bullion is actually exported to a buyer may not affect the seller’s application of zero-rate tax rate; and (b) the fact that there is a defect in the process of issuing a purchase approval does not necessarily mean that the purchase approval issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank is insufficient; and (c) the supplier was aware that there is a defect in issuing a purchase approval, the supply of goods made under the said purchase approval may not be immediately excluded from the supply of goods subject to zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act only on the ground of such defect in the process of issuing the purchase approval (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13

(2) However, in addition to the above facts, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant gold bullion sold at zero tax rate but within a short time at the domestic market; (b) the transaction type of the instant gold bullion including the Plaintiff’s sales of most of the gold bullion on the same day; (c) the Plaintiff’s sales of the gold bullion do not seem to have been normal transaction; and (d) the Plaintiff appears to have performed the role of importing company to evade value-added tax pursuant to the gold bullion transaction; (c) the Plaintiff was convicted of having committed an act of evading value-added tax in collusion with the Do governor, Do governor, and Cho Young-gu, Seoul; (d) the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was used as the purchasing company; and (d) the Plaintiff’s sales offices were aware of the violation of the Procedure for Punishment of Tax Offenses Act; and (e) the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the gold bullion with the domestic market price higher than the international market price for gold bullion trading; and (e) the Plaintiff did not make any false confirmation of the import price of the instant gold bullion trading.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

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