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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each item of evidence A1-1-5, evidence A-2, evidence A-3-1, evidence A-4, evidence A-1-2, 3, evidence B-1, and evidence B-2:

A. The Plaintiff is a corporate entity that has run the trade business and gold bullion wholesale business from November 12, 2003 (referring to the “gold bullion” in this case, including gold bullion and dudide, and whose net value is not less than 995/100).

나. 원고는 설립 당시부터 2004. 9. 17.까지 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯, 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯, 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯, 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯ 등 총 7개의 금지금 도매업체(이하 '이 사건 매입처'라고 한다)로부터 공급가액 합계 25,818,831,450원 상당의 금지금(이하 '이 사건 금지금'이라고 한다) 매입에 관한 63매의 세금계산서들(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라고 한다)을 교부받았고, 설립 당시부터 2004. 9. 30.까지 홍콩 소재 외국회사인 ◯◯◯◯◯◯, ◯◯◯◯ 트레이딩사(◯◯◯◯◯◯)등에게 수출가액 합계 22,956,240,426원 상당의 금지금을 수출하였다.

C. Based on the instant tax invoice and the aforementioned export facts, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant each tax base and tax amount of the second term portion in 2003, the first term portion in 2004, and the second term portion in 2004, and the corporate tax for 2003 and 2004, respectively.

라. 그런데 ◯◯◯◯◯◯은 2004. 10. 8.부터 2005. 7. 11.까지 원고에 대하여 법칙조사(아래에서는 '이 사건 조사'라고 한다)를 실시한 결과 이 사건 세금계산서를 '사실과 다른 세금계산서'로 인정한 후 피고에게 이를 통보하였고, 이에 피고는 2005. 10. 11. 원고에 대하여 2003년 제2기분 부가가치세 481,231,430원, 2004년 제1기분 부가가치세 1,994,118,060원, 2004년 제2기분 부가가치세 669,912,290원, 2003 사업연도 귀속 법인세 81,693,480원, 2004 사업연도 귀속 법인세 486,320,800원을 각 부과(이하 위 각 부과처분을 통틀어 '이 사건 처분'이라고 한다)하였다.

마. 원고는 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 2006. 1. 9. ◯◯◯◯에 심판청구를 하였으나, ◯◯◯◯은 2006. 8. 28. 원고의 위 심판청구를 기각하였다.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff actually traded the same content as the tax invoice of this case, the tax invoice of this case does not correspond to the tax invoice of this case, and even if so, the Plaintiff did not know it without negligence, and the disposition of this case was unlawful on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 3, 4-1 through 33, 5, 6, 7-1, 2, 8, 9, 10-1, 2, 11-1 through 7, 12-1 through 12, 13, 14-1, 2, 15, 16:

(1) The Plaintiff’s establishment process, etc.

원고의 대표이사인 오◯◯은 1998. 10.경 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사에서 퇴직한 후 '◯◯◯◯◯◯'라는 상호의 회사에서 근무하여 오던 중, 2003. 11.경 이 사건 매

처 중의 하나인 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 대표이사인 양◯◯의 사업설명을 듣고 2003. 11. 12.경 원고를 설립하였다.

(2) Type, etc. of the gold bullion transaction

(가) 원고의 수출처 중 ◯◯◯◯은 ◯◯인 황◯◯가 운영하는 ◯◯의 빈민가 및 우범지대에 소재하고 있고, 수입한 금지금을 ◯◯◯◯에 매출하고 ◯◯◯◯가 다시 ◯◯의 금지금 수입업체에게 수출하는 위장수입업체이며, ◯◯◯◯◯◯사( ◯◯◯◯◯◯) 또한 이 사건 매입처 중의 하나인 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 대표이사 이◯◯의 형(兄) 이◯◯이 설립한 위장수입업체로 보인다.

(B) The instant gold bullion was all imported from a foreign country and distributed as a tax-free gold by an importing company, and was converted from the importing company to the Plaintiff, and was a total of 6-8 stages from the importing company to the Plaintiff. The said transaction was conducted within one day from the date of import of the relevant gold bullion (the date of partial import) and the Plaintiff exported all the instant gold bullion on the date of purchase. In addition, some of the gold bullion were re-exported imported and exported without any processing.

(다) 이 사건 금지금의 수출가격은 수입가격보다 낮았고, 국내시세(주요 금지금 도매업체인 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사가 매일 인터넷 또는 자동응답전화로 고시하는 금지금의 도매시세) 및 국제시세와 비교하여도 상당히 저렴하였다.

(D) On the other hand, the wholesalers converting the gold bullion of this case into the tax-free gold bullion during the distribution, who sold the gold bullion that they purchased at a lower price than the purchase price (However, the amount added to the value-added tax amount, i.e., the value-added tax amount, which is higher than the purchase price), and did not fulfill the liability to pay value-added tax by closing the business. The representatives of the above companies have no business experience in the precious metal field, most of them do not have family or ownership property, and some parts do not

(E) The Plaintiff did not file an application for refund of customs duties under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export with respect to the customs duties paid at the time of the import of the gold bullion at the time of the import of the instant gold bullion.

(F) The Plaintiff knew that the instant investigation had commenced, and immediately suspended the export of gold bullion, and thereafter did not export gold bullion thereafter.

(3) Transaction and status of the gold bullion of this case by the purchaser, etc. of this case

(가) 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 경우

1) 금지금 도매업 및 수출업을 영위하는 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯(이하 '◯◯◯◯'라고 한다)의 대표이사 이◯◯은 세금계산서를 교부받지 않고 구입한 출처가 불분명한 금지금(속칭 '뒷금')을 정상적인 금지금처럼 가장하여(다수의 가공 금지금 도매회사를 6개월에서 1년 단위로 순차적으로 설립한 후 실제로 금지금 거래를 하지 아니한 채 인터넷뱅킹 등을 통하여 금융근거자료를 만들고 허위의 세금계산서를 발행하는 방법으로 위 뒷금에 대한 2단계 이상의 매입근거를 만들어 정상거래를 가장하였다) 거래처에 판매하거나 수출하여 부가가치세를 부당환급받기 위해 자료상인 한◯◯ 등과 공모하여 대표이사 명의를 김◯◯로 하여 ◯◯◯◯를 설립하였다.

2) 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 명의상의 대표이사인 김◯◯는 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯에 자본금 출자 없이 명의만 빌려주었고, 이◯◯의 사위인 김◯◯과 한◯◯의 아들인 한◯◯가 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 주주이며, 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 사업장에 대한 임대차계약도 한◯◯가 체결하였다.

3) 김◯◯는 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 사업장(◯◯ ◯◯구 ◯◯동 ◯◯ ◯◯상사 ◯◯호)에서 근무를 하지 않았고, ◯◯◯◯의 사무실(◯◯ ◯◯구 ◯◯동 ◯◯ ◯◯빌딩 ◯◯호)에서 '김◯◯'이라는 호칭으로 일부 금지금을 이◯◯의 지시를 받아 거래처에 배달하는 업무를 하였다.

4) 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 거래처들은 ◯◯◯◯의 사무실로 전화로 주문하였고, 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯ 명의의 세금계산서 발행과 거래대금의 결제는 ◯◯◯◯의 경리직원인 이◯◯(이◯◯의 딸)이 하였다. 무통장입금증 ·인터넷뱅킹 거래명세서·세금계산서·예금통장 겉표지 등에 거래수량이나 거래금액을 기록한 글씨는 이◯◯의 필적이었다.

5) ◯◯◯◯가 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯로부터 매입세금계산서를 수취하고 지급한 금원은 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 매입처로서 이◯◯ 등이 설립한 가공업체들인 ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사, 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯, ◯◯◯◯ 주식회사 등에 송금되었고, 위 업체들에 의해 현금으로 인출된 금원은 한◯◯ 등을 통하여 이◯◯에게 전달되었다.

나) 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 경우

주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 대표이사 이◯◯은 이 사건 금지금을 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯에 공급하는 업체들의 대표자들과 여러 차례 골프회동을 하여 왔다.

(C) Criminal judgment against the purchaser of the instant case

◯◯◯◯은 2007. 4. 6. 2006고합1196호 사건에서 이◯◯에 대하여 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(조세), 조세범처벌법위반죄로 징역 6년 및 벌금 740억원을 선고하였고, 김◯◯에 대하여 징역 2년 6월에 집행유예 5년을 선고하였다(이◯◯은 위 판결에 불복하여 ◯◯◯◯ 2007노896호로 항소하여 2007. 7. 24. 위 법원으로부터 징역 5년 및 벌금 740억 원을 선고받았다).

(4) A general form of variable transaction for the purpose of tax evasion among gold bullion transactions.

한편, 2003. 7. 1.부터 조세특례제한법 제106조의3에 의하여 '면세금 제도'가 시행되자 ◯◯의 금지금 도매업체들 중 일부는 위 제도를 악용하여 부가가치세를 포탈하고 국고로부터 부당한 이득을 취하기 위하여 다음과 같은 탈세수법(2003. 6. 30. 이전부터 '영세율 제도'의 악용을 위하여 동일한 형태로 이용되어 오면서, 그 내용이 2003.경 이미 금지금 도매업계에 널리 알려져 있었다. 이하 '폭탄영업'이라고 한다)을 이용하여 왔다.

(A) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ‘foreign companies ? ? importer companies ? ? ? ? 2 (Omission) companies ? ? Sheeting companies ? ? floor wholesale companies ? ? export companies ? foreign companies ? the transaction price is paid in sequence from the exporters to the importing companies. However, among the above distributors, at least a large carbon company from the above distributors to the floor wholesale companies are issued a tax invoice according to the order of a specific person or a specific company, and in fact, it is most cases where gold bullion is not traded or transported at the above stage.

(B) A company that purchased gold bullion, which is distributed as tax-free gold at the previous stage of its transfer, and sold it as tax-free gold in addition to the 10% value-added tax to the company that participated in the business, and then made it impossible to collect the value-added tax by withdrawing its profit in cash within the short period. The amount equivalent to the value-added tax that the company received from the company that received from the company that received from the company that received from the company that received from the immediately preceding stage of its transfer is successively transferred to the country through the method of deducting the input tax through the tax invoice that the company received from the company that received from the immediately preceding stage of its purchase. Ultimately, the portion equivalent to the value-added tax that the exporter did not pay, out of the amount of the value-added tax refunded, is the ultimate source of profit from the business that the exporter purchased the gold bullion. The above profit is either distributed in the form of Magin or distributed to the domestic company that participated in the business in the business in the sale of the gold bullion separately from the import price of the domestic company.

(C) In order to maximize its profit, the gas supply business distributes a large quantity of gold within a normal and short period of time. In order to prevent disputes between the participating companies that may arise therefrom, or accidents such as loss of prices, etc., ① most of the same former owners (referring to those who prepare for the first gold bullion import and settlement from the outside of the gas supply network; c) operate both the exporters and the importers at the same time, ② shall place the former owners in direct transactions with the gas supply companies. ② The former owners shall determine the volume, unit price, and margin of transactions at each stage of transactions. ④ The former owners shall determine the volume of transactions at each stage of transactions, ④ The series of transactions from the importer to the exporter is very short time, ④ the gold bullion is transported immediately with the exporter, and the latter is the most characteristic of transportation, including: (4) where the actual objects are transported immediately with the normal transaction.

(5) Reduction of trade volume after implementation of the tax payment security system (Article 106-3(11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act);

The trade volume of gold bullion before and after the implementation of the tax payment security system on April 1, 2005 shall be as follows:

Classification

203. 203

204.

205.

206.

Export volume (metric tons)

165

233

19

45

Import volume (metric tons)

238

268

56

10

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes “unlawful tax invoice” and whether the Plaintiff was unaware of it without negligence

(A) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions, based on direct evidence or all the circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that the taxpayer who deals with the illegality of the defendant's disposition can present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer dealing with the illegality of the defendant's disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

In addition, under Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, an entrepreneur who supplies or receives goods or services, such as a person who delivers or provides services due to a contractual cause, is entitled to receive a tax invoice from the supplier, and the person liable to pay value-added tax is the one who actually supplies or receives the goods or services from the supplier, not from the supplier or the person who establishes a nominal legal relationship with the supplier, but from the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). Other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice are prohibited from being deducted or refunded unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who received the goods or services was not negligent in not knowing the above fact, a person who claims the deduction or refund of the input tax amount shall prove the fact that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2727.

(B) As to the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as seen earlier, the following circumstances may be inferred.

1) 원고의 이 사건 금지금 거래 당시 폭탄영업은 이미 금지금 도매업계에 널리 알려져 있었고, 원고의 대표이사는 이 사건 매입처 중의 하나인 주식회사 ◯◯ ◯◯의 대표이사인 양◯◯의 사업설명을 듣고 원고를 설립하였다.

2) 이 사건 매입처 중 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯는 '면세금 제도'를 악용한 이른바 '폭탄영업'을 주도한 한◯◯, 이◯◯ 등이 설립하였고, 위 회사 명의의 금지금 거래도 실질적으로는 이◯◯이 행한 것이며, 위 회사의 거래처들은 이러한 점을 잘 알고 있었던 것으로 보이고, 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯의 대표이사 이◯◯은 이 사건 금지금을 주식회사 ◯◯◯◯에 공급하는 업체들의 대표자들과 여려 차례 골프회동을 하여 오면서 이 사건 금지금 거래를 공모하여 온 것으로 보인다.

3) The instant gold bullion was distributed within a very short period from importation to exportation via wholesalers. Moreover, some of the instant gold bullion were repeatedly imported and exported without any processing.

4) The export price of the instant gold bullion was lower than the import price, and was considerably lower than the domestic market price and international market price.

5) During the distribution process of the gold bullion in this case, the companies showing the same characteristics and behavior as the bombane in the typical bombing business were necessarily involved.

6) The domestic wholesale market tax for gold bullion was announced daily, and the gold bullion of this case was not processed or modified domestically. The domestic trade of the gold bullion of this case was conducted within one day, but all of the said trade was conducted at different prices, and the participating companies were set a considerable margin.

7) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s assertion as to the details of distribution of the gold bullion of this case is not specifically reflected by submitting data that could specify the gold bullion of this case, and that the Plaintiff did not confirm the quantity, manufacturing company, serial number, etc. of the gold bullion of this case. The Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to obtain the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion in light of the fact that the Plaintiff thoroughly prepared and preserved evidence of the transaction of the gold bullion of this case, or that the specification of the object of transaction in relation to the weight, degree, etc. is important in the transaction of gold bullion of this case.

8) 원고의 수출처는 ◯◯ 소재인 외국회사인 ◯◯◯◯◯◯, ◯◯◯◯◯◯, ◯◯ ◯◯, ◯◯◯◯◯◯(◯◯◯◯◯◯◯◯) 등으로 일정한데, 그중 ◯◯◯◯ 및 ◯◯◯◯◯◯ 는 위장수입업체이다.

9) While exporting the gold bullion of this case, the Plaintiff renounced enormous profits by failing to apply for the refund of customs duties, and the Plaintiff cannot find a reasonable ground therefor.

10) The Plaintiff immediately suspended the export of gold bullion with the knowledge of the commencement of the instant investigation. If the Plaintiff has been engaged in the normal export business, there is no reasonable ground to do so.

(다) 이러한 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 금지금을 과세금으로 전환한 업체들은 이른바 폭탄업체로서 이들과 그 전후업체 사이의 거래는 오로지 면세거래를 과세 거래로 전환하기 위하여 세금계산서만을 발행하여 수수하는 명목상의 거래일 뿐 이고, 그 이후 원고에 이르기까지의 거래에 관여한 과세도매상들도 단지 원고로부터 받은 대금을 그 매입처에 송금하여 전달하고 세금계산서를 수수한 다음 이러한 개입의 대가로 장차 포탈할 부가가치세액의 일정 부분을 매출가액과 매입가액의 차액이라는 형태로 취득하는 사업자들로서, 이들과 원고 사이에서 이 사건 금지금에 관한 각 매매계약이 체결되고 이에 따라 그에 상응한 금지금이 ◯◯에 의하여 소유권이 이전되며 대금이 지급되는 등의 매매거래가 실제로 이루어졌다고는 보기 어렵고, 원고가 이들 사업자들을 통하여 이 사건 금지금을 거래하였다는 것은 폭탄영업을 실제거래로 위장하기 위한 명목일 뿐이며, 원고도 그 거래과정에서 이러한 사정을 알았거나 알 수 있었다고 봄이 상당하다.

(D) Therefore, the instant tax invoice was prepared without actual transaction or prepared by at least the supplier differently from the actual transaction, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was unaware of it without negligence.

(2) Judgment on the plaintiff's other assertion

(A) On this issue, the Plaintiff did not reveal the direct evidence of the Plaintiff’s participation in the distribution of the gold bullion at each stage of distribution. ② At the same time, the gold bullion in this case was separated from part of other gold bullion imported by the importing company at each stage of distribution, and became a single transaction, and its transaction line was complicated. ③ The Plaintiff’s export price was based on international market prices, and the Plaintiff did not know about the profit margin at each time, and there was no time less than once the Plaintiff reported the damage to the Plaintiff. ④ The Plaintiff is an exporter who is in a passive position to receive value-added tax refund. ④ The Plaintiff was in a passive position to receive value-added tax refund. ⑤ The Plaintiff did not directly know of the width coal company involved in the distribution of the gold bullion in this case, and it was impossible for the Plaintiff to negotiate with all of the distribution companies at each stage, and the Plaintiff was not recognized as the processing transaction of the gold bullion in this case, and the Plaintiff did not fully meet its liability to supervise the sales of the gold bullion in this case.

(B) However, the above individual circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff are ① because of the characteristics of the wide-scale coal business that takes place through a systematic public offering, it is difficult to secure direct evidence of a specific person’s involvement in the business. ② If the Plaintiff’s ordinary trade transactions are highly likely to cause complicated trade lines, but there is a need to operate complicated trade lines in order to conceal the wide-scale coal business. Thus, the Plaintiff’s circumstance that the transaction lines of the gold bullion are complicated is not supporting the Plaintiff’s trade. ③ The Plaintiff may sufficiently participate in and gain profit from the wide-scale coal business even if it exports gold bullion with considerable export price determined by the Plaintiff in light of international market prices, and there is no need to raise profit margins on the export price or profit margins determined by the Plaintiff. However, it does not seem to have been damaged in terms of the fact that the export price was higher than the purchase price, but it is difficult for the Plaintiff to take account of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any particular opportunity to avoid unfair trade practices between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s involvement in the business of the gold bullion in the instant case.

(3) Sub-Sections

Therefore, there is no error of law as asserted by the plaintiff in the disposition of this case on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is "unlawful tax invoice."

3. Conclusion

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

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 11 (Application of Zero Tax Rate)

(1) zero tax rates shall apply to the supply of goods or services falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Exported goods;

Article 17 (Payable Tax 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 it shall be a refundable tax amount exceeding the output tax amount (hereinafter referred to as the "re

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 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 be excluded;

Article 21 (Settlement and Correction)

(1) The Commissioner of the National Tax Service or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service of the competent regional tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business shall determine or correct the tax base and amount of value-added tax paid or refunded in the taxable period

2. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of a final return;

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

Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7838 of Dec. 31, 2005)

Article 66 (Settlement and Correction)

(2) Where a domestic corporation which has made a report pursuant to Article 60 falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the superintendent of the district tax office or the Commissioner of the competent Local Tax Service shall correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax on the income

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

Article 76 (Additional Tax)

(5) In case where a corporation (excluding such corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with an entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to receive the evidential documents falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount not received, except for the case where the proviso of

Article 116 (Receipt and Safekeeping of Documentary Evidence of Expenditures)

(2) In cases of paragraph (1), where any corporation receives goods or services from a business operator prescribed by the Presidential Decree and pays the price therefor, it shall receive and keep the evidential documents falling under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases prescribed by

2. Tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

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

Article 106-3 (Special Taxation of Value-Added Tax for Gold Metals)

(1) The value-added tax shall be exempted not later than 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 with the form, degree, 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 referred to as "gold bullion wholesalers, etc." in this Article) to the gold craftsmen, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as the "gold craftsmen, etc." in this Article) who have received tax-free recommendation from a person prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as the "trade of trading the

2. Gold bullion supplied or redeemed under the consumption loan for gold bullion by the wholesalers, etc. of gold bullion and financial institutions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the “financial institutions”) to the financial institutions subjected to the tax-free recommendation for the trading of tax-free gold bullion

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

(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 recommendation for tax-free import from persons prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "recommendeds of tax-free water suppliers" in this Article

(3) Special cases under the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to the tax-free gold metals under paragraph (1) pursuant to one 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 the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply. 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, but the tax-free gold bullion wholesaler, etc. supplied by the gold bullion wholesaler, and the value-added tax amount borne by the relevant entrepreneur in connection with the purchase of the tax-

Finally.