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

On October 10, 2005, the defendant imposed value-added tax on the plaintiff on the first term portion 35,394,834, second term portion 2,808,409, 423, 171 minute 5, 104, 104, 752, 146, 450, and 344 for the second term portion of 2004, corporate tax 439,959, 031, 983,754, and 281 for the business year 2004, and both the second term portion of value-added tax 9364, 998, and 683 won for the second term of 204 and the second term of 204 are revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

except that the reasons for which the court will present in this case shall add to the following judgments:

Therefore, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are the same as the statement in the reasoning of the first instance judgment.

this shall be cited as it is by the court.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's export transaction of gold bullion exclusively applies zero-rate tax rates to the export of gold bullion, and that at least a series of illegal acts committed in collusion by the so-called so-called large coal business, intermediate wholesale business, and the plaintiff for the purpose of refunding the value-added tax evaded by the so-called large coal business through the form of export. Thus, in order to prevent damage to the State caused by illegal acts, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff should deny the deduction of the input tax amount and refuse to file an application for refund. However, in light of the prior circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that even according to all the evidentiary materials specified in the case, the plaintiff committed an act of tax

B. Next, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s taking the instant gold bullion out of Korea is merely a formal disguised export aimed at acquiring the tax-free gold bullion through the method of converting the tax-free gold bullion into the taxation amount by abusing the zero tax rate system and the input tax deduction system, which are recognized for exporters rather than normal goods export. However, it is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff carried the instant gold bullion out of Korea only for the purpose of refunding the value-added tax by abusing the zero tax rate system and the input tax deduction without the intention to export the goods normally. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

C. Furthermore, in light of the transaction process and transaction price of the gold bullion in this case, the Defendant stated that the value-added tax was not actually fixed at the time of the gold bullion transaction in this case, but the value-added tax was formally divided into the supply value and value-added tax, and thus, in this sense, the Defendant alleged that the tax invoice in this case constitutes

(c)

However, in cases where an entrepreneur, who is liable to pay value-added tax, delivers or transfers goods due to contractual or legal grounds, it is subject to value-added tax, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the laws that exempt or exempt the value-added tax. On the other hand, in cases where an entrepreneur, who is supplied goods, expects the entrepreneur to deduct the pertinent input tax amount from his total output tax amount, and proceeds from such transaction. Thus, in cases of the supply transaction of goods between such entrepreneur, the value-added tax is separate and specified in the supply contract, and accordingly, if a tax invoice is issued and receives the proceeds from the issuance of the tax invoice in a lump sum, the value-added tax shall be deemed to have been actually collected separately from the receipt of the supply price (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da6065, May 27, 2005). As acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion in this case after various stages from the supplier of the instant gold bullion, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion in the course of the transaction.

3. Conclusion

If so, the first island judgment is just, so the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is identical to the order.

partnership.