Export declaration certificate with respect to the transaction as the Plaintiff, the buyer, and the Chinese Aadiex.

the Plaintiff’s sales of the instant transaction to the Plaintiff’s head of each shop.

the commercial invoice for the transaction of this case, the commercial invoice for the transaction of this case

The fact that the plaintiff entered as "sub-sub-subscribed" is recognized in the above C. 5, but the above facts are as follows.

(c)for the facts found in Gap, evidence Nos. 3, 14, Eul evidence No. 7-1, and 7-2, as a whole;

In full view of the following circumstances known to the purport of the instant transaction, the Plaintiff and Korea

It is reasonable to deem that a transaction constitutes a domestic transaction conducted under a supply contract between Aadiex;

Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act only on the facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff

Domestic goods under Article 24 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be shipped out to a foreign country.

It is difficult to regard it as falling under, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(c)

(1) The nominal owner of the purchase order on the purchase order of this case is "Korea Aadix", and the case

“The Plaintiff” in the supply contract shall furnish goods in accordance with the purchase order issued by Korea Aadiex.

of this case. The purchase order of this case is agreed upon by an employee of the Chinese Aadiex

Aaditex was sent to the employee of the company, but the employee of a Chinese Aaditex is only the employee of the plaintiff company.

In addition, the fact that the purchase order of this case is sent at the same time to the employees of Korea Aadiex

In light of the above, the purchase order of this case is not China Aadiex, but Korea Aadiex.

the purchase order of this case, and the telephone number, facsimile and facsimile of the Chinese Aadix

The number may be indicated by the Plaintiff’s delivery to China Aadiex of the instant printed circuit board.

It seems only to be written for convenience.

(2) The plaintiff delivered goods to the place designated by Korea Aadiex in the supply contract of this case.

The Plaintiff agreed that the printed circuit board of this case is the location of the Chinese Aadiex.

Do The State shall designate the location of the Chinese Aadiex as the place of delivery by the State of India.

It seems that it appears that it is.

(3) The instant supply contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and Korea Aadiex, and Korea Aa

The order of the product, the designation of the place of delivery, the quantity inspection, and approval, etc. of the shipment inspection standards by DNA.

A. As described in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, Korea A.I.T.T.T.T.T.T.

The purchase order is issued and the place of delivery is designated, and Korea Aadiex representative director cc

I stated that the instant supply contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Korea Aadiex, etc.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff appears to have entered into the instant supply contract between Korea Aadiex.

C. The Plaintiff’s oral provision of the instant printed circuit board between China Aadiex

According to the above oral agreement, the instant printed circuit board was supplied to China Aadiex.

C. Although it is alleged that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, it is different from the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

There is no evidence to prove.

(4) According to the financial situation table of the Chinese Aadiex, the business year between the year of 2010 and the year of 2010.

A person with a special interest in 2011 only purchased raw materials from a person with a special interest, and the plaintiff

There is no description of purchase of raw materials from a corporation that is not a transferor.

(5) The phrase "person who bears risks and costs of the commercial invoice concerning the transaction of this case" is Korea.

The two-dimensional text is written by the two-dimensional, and Korea Aadiex is the goods for the Plaintiff under the instant transaction.

The money was paid.

2) Determination as to the argument above A. 2

A) Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act concerning the supply of exported goods

Article 24 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the tax rate shall apply.

Goods exported under Article 11 (1) 1 shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance by the entrepreneur.

goods supplied by a national letter of credit or a written confirmation of purchase shall be deemed to include goods.

the Commission.

Meanwhile, Article 11(1)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (Article 11(1)4) is an exported goods (Article 11(1)1)

Foreign currency other than services (paragraph (2) and overseas navigation services (paragraph (3)) of vessels or aircraft for use;

The zero-rate tax rate shall apply to goods or services prescribed by Presidential Decree.

section 26 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall obtain foreignization in accordance with the delegation of the above provision.

The scope of "goods or services prescribed by Presidential Decree" is defined.

Under the VAT system, the application of zero tax rate is, in principle, to prevent double taxation.

foreign exchange equivalent to the export, with respect to domestic consumption, recognized only in cases of the domestic consumption.

Countries that encourage foreign exchange earnings within the scope of not impairing management and the collection order of value-added tax;

only if the purpose of the policy is consistent with the purpose of the policy, in exceptional and limited cases as prescribed by the statute.

As such, the former Value-Added Tax Act-related Acts and subordinate statutes should be strictly interpreted (alternative).

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu409 Decided December 27, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 2007Du22863 Decided April 9, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2007Du22863 Decided April 27, 201

26. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2774.

B) Articles 24(2) and 26(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act constitute “export”

or a supply contract with a domestic business entity, which is subject to zero-rate tax rate.

applicable tax rate under the above-mentioned statute for the purposes of "if the goods are delivered directly to "foreign country".

As such, the Plaintiff does not provide for a supply contract between Korea and Korea.

D. The transaction of this case is zero tax rate with the delivery of the printing circuit board of this case to China

there is no legal basis to regard it as being subject to the application.

C) Also, whether the Plaintiff was issued a local letter of credit or a written confirmation of purchase regarding the instant transaction

There is no dispute between the parties that the transaction of this case was enforced by the former Value-Added Tax Act.

Decree does not qualify for the zero-rate tax rate prescribed in Article 24(2)1 of the Decree, but the Plaintiff shall become

No different is the case where an export declaration certificate is issued with respect to a dry transaction.

D) The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

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

Each disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 501,560,300 (including additional tax of KRW 1,825,271), KRW 1,049,857,090 (including additional tax of KRW 423,413,31) in 2010, KRW 556,154,520 (including additional tax of KRW 213,629,634), and KRW 65,701, KRW 910 (including additional tax of KRW 20,595,555555) in 2012, which was imposed on the Plaintiff on July 7, 2014.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on April 11, 1972 and operated a printing circuit board manufacturing business. (b) The Plaintiff, in the first 1 taxable period of 2,897,350,197, supply price of 6,264,534 won in the second 2 taxable period of 2010, supply price of 3,429,65,249 won in the second 2 taxable period of 2011, supply price of 451,063,440 won in 20, 1500, 201, 205, 150, 205, 205, 205, 16, 30,000,000, 15,000,000,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "15,000,0000,000) and 17,01,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff manufactured the instant printed circuit board in accordance with the purchase order issued by the Chinese Aadiex, and released the instant printed circuit board to China Aadix through lawful export declaration procedures, such as the issuance of export declaration certificates. As such, the Plaintiff’s transfer of domestic goods to a foreign country was “the Plaintiff,” the instant transaction constitutes “the supply of goods exported” under Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Article 24(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the zero-rate tax rate shall apply.

2) Even if the instant transaction was between the Plaintiff and Korea AADT, the former Value-Added Tax-Related Act and subordinate statutes stipulate that the zero-rate tax shall apply to the goods that are delivered to a domestic business entity designated by a foreign corporation even if a contract was concluded with a foreign corporation (Article 11(1)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 26(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) only if certain requirements are met, etc., (Article 11(1)4 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 26(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. As long as the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant printed circuit board, which is a domestic business entity, to China, is included in the goods exported to which zero-rate tax is applied, the instant printed circuit board is more strict in the process of issuing a certificate of completion of declaration on exportation than the local letter of credit or purchase certificate under Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) On February 25, 2009, the Plaintiff drafted a contract for the supply of goods (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) with Korea Aadiex with the following content.

As regards the printed circuit board supplied by the Plaintiff, Korea AadiT and the Plaintiff are as follows:

Article 3 (Orders for Products)

1. The purchase order of the product shall be supplied by the Plaintiff in accordance with the purchase order of the product issued by Korea Aadiex.

3. The Plaintiff must receive a purchase order from Korea Aadiex, verify the delivery schedule, and then follow the due date for payment.

Article 4 (Transportation, Delivery, and Inspection of Products)

1. The completion of delivery of the product is confirmed at the designated location of a Aadiex in Korea, and the costs associated with transportation are borne by the Plaintiff.

2. Korea A.I.T. shall, as soon as the delivery of products from the Plaintiff is made by quantitative and Insp Section, notify the Plaintiff without delay and shall be returned, exchanged, or compensated.

3. The plaintiff shall seal the result of shipment inspection at the time of shipment of the product, and the standard of shipment inspection shall be inspected in accordance with the approved source approved by the Korea Aaditech.

2) Upon receipt of a tax investigation on October 23, 2013, the representative director of the Korea AadiTex directly purchased and used a printed circuit board (PCB) from the domestic and foreign enterprises before February 2009. On February 2, 2009, the industry was changed from the manufacturing industry to the processing industry, and it was impossible to purchase the printed circuit board and other raw materials. At present, the Korea AdiTex purchased the raw materials from the Korea AadiT, and supplied them (China) to the Korea AadiTT, and then supplied them to the Korea A.T. 2, the Plaintiff and the Korea A.T. 2, which were directly designated by the Korea A.T. 9, to avoid regulation by the competent authorities of national tax, were supplied to the Korea A.T.T.T.T.T. 2, 2009.

3) In relation to the integrated investigation of corporate tax for the year 2010, Korea signed a contract with the Plaintiff, etc. to supply goods to the Chinese subsidiary company from 2009 to 2012 to supply goods directly to the Chinese subsidiary company, and the price paid in foreign currency, but confirmed that the purchase tax invoice for the transaction was not received.

4) The purchase principal document of the instant transaction (Purch A, A No. 3, 14, hereinafter referred to as “the purchase principal document of this case”) is named in the name of Korea Aadiex. The address column includes the address of Korea Aadiex, the telephone number of China in the telephone number column, and the destination column, and the Chinese b area of Chinese Aadiex in the destination column.

5) In the commercial invoice for the instant transaction, the commercial invoice for the instant transaction states as follows: “Plaintiffs” in the exporter (Ex Report) column, “Korea Aadix", and “Delivery Notice column” in the column for 111 Chang An Arad, Yuyi Inc. Ltd., Seoul, Yuiang City, Jiangrece, CHINA (the address of Aadix)”, and “Puda Garacin in the final destination column.”

6) The Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of the goods upon sending the commercial invoice as described in the foregoing 5 to Korea Aadiex. The Plaintiff received the payment of the goods for the instant printed circuit board from Korea Aadiex.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 8, 14, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 6-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 7-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination as to the argument above A. 1

A) The meaning of "taking domestic goods out of Korea to a foreign country"

Article 11 (1) 1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods for export shall be subject to zero tax rates," and Article 24 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the export under Article 11 (1) 1 of the same Act shall take out domestic goods from a foreign country (Article 11 (1) 1) and the domestic goods shall be traded such as contract and payment, etc. at a domestic place of business, and shall fall under any export by relay trade method, consignment export, foreign export, consignment processing trade method (Article 11 (1) 2)."

Article 2, subparagraph 3 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act provides that "export" means the movement of goods from the Republic of Korea to a foreign country for sale, exchange, lease, loan for use, gifting, etc."

Meanwhile, in order to prevent double taxation in cases where value-added tax is levied and collected at the stage of production and supply in international trade of goods or services and then the value-added tax is levied again in the importing country, the application of zero-rate tax under the VAT system is, in principle, recognized only for exports in accordance with the consumption tax principle under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GT) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu2182, Dec. 20, 198; 2005Du12718, Jun. 14, 2007). In light of the above provisions and legal principles, “taking domestic goods out of Korea” under Article 24(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act means simply moving domestic goods from a foreign country to a foreign country, barring any special circumstance, it means moving goods owned by a national to a foreign country based on a causal relationship involving transfer of disposal authority, such as sale, exchange, and gift (see Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu61664, Jan. 264, 2014).

B) In imposing the value-added tax, the burden of proving the value of supply is imposed on the tax authority, but the reason that the tax authority is "exported goods to which zero-rate tax applies" belongs belongs to a special reason that exceptionally affects the determination of the tax amount to be paid or the tax amount to be refunded, so it is reasonable to deem that the liability for assertion and proof exists on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu1409, Jun. 10, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2014Guhap5128, Jun. 20, 2014).

According to Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 11-4, and Gap evidence No. 12, the plaintiff shall file an objection.