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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 34,50,090 for the second half-year value-added tax for the year 2004 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2005 and the disposition of refusal to refund the input tax amount of KRW 177,25,904 is revoked.

* 제2쪽 10번째 줄의 "합니다."⇛ "합니다."

*제6쪽 아래에서 9번째 줄의 "100KG" ⇛ "100kg"

*제6쪽 아래에서 8번째 줄의 "110KG" ⇛ "110kg"

*제6쪽 아래에서 7번째 줄의 "100KG" ⇛ "100kg"

*제8쪽 9번째 줄의 "100KG" ⇛ "100kg"

*제8쪽 9번째 줄의 "중 70KG" ⇛ "그중70kg"

*제10쪽 아래에서 8번째 줄의 "차용하여" ⇛ "차용하여"

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap27875 (2008 April 02)]

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing value-added tax of KRW 34,50,090 for the second term of 2004 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2005 and the disposition of rejecting the refund of input tax of KRW 177,255,90 for the second term of 204 is revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on July 8, 2004 for the purpose of trade and prohibited gold wholesale business.

B. In the second half of 2004, the Plaintiff received a purchase tax invoice of KRW 1,765,050,000 (hereinafter referred to as "each tax invoice of this case") in the aggregate of supply values of KRW 1,765,050,00 from Non-Party ○○ (hereinafter referred to as "○○○") on two occasions, and each tax invoice of this case receives "the first tax invoice of this case" in the order of transaction dates, and "the second tax invoice of this case" in the second tax invoice of this case. This was the export of the Hong Kong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○. (hereinafter referred to as "○○ ○") on October 23, 2004, and filed a refund of value-added tax of KRW 17,255,904 on October 23, 2004.

Date of transaction

Quantity (kg)

Unit price (unit price)

Value of supply (cost)

Value-added Tax (cost)

September 16, 2004

50

14,693

734,650,000

73,465,00;

September 20, 2004

70

14,720

1,030,400,000

103,040,000

Total Amount

1,765,050,000

176,505,00

C. However, in April 1, 2005, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service decided that the transaction related to the tax invoice of this case is an irregular transaction by organized collusion among transaction partners to receive unfair refund of value-added tax, and notified the Defendant of the determination. The Defendant deemed the tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice and notified the Defendant of the determination. The Defendant, on June 1, 2005, notified the Plaintiff of KRW 17,25,90, value-added tax amounting to KRW 34,50,090, including additional tax (2/100) and KRW 35,301,000,000, which included additional tax (2/100).

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, and Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff received each of the tax invoices of this case from ○○○ to purchase the actual prohibited amount and to pay the price in full, each of the dispositions stated in the claim(hereinafter referred to as “each of the dispositions of this case”) is unlawful on the premise that each of the tax invoices of this case is a false tax invoice by disguised purchase.

B. Relevant statutes

See the entry of the attached statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A general form of variable transaction for the purpose of tax evasion, among prohibited gold transactions;

(A) With respect to the supply of exported goods, zero tax rates are applied (Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act), and the sales of gold bullion supplied by wholesalers and manufacturers of gold bullion business operators who received tax exemption recommendation from tax-free gold dealers and gold craftsmen who received tax exemption recommendation from tax-free gold importers and the sales of gold bullion business operators to June 30, 2005 are exempt from value-added tax (Article 106-3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7577 of Jul. 13, 2005). The case holding that the value-added tax was levied between Jongno-gu Seoul and Jongno-gu precious metal business operators by abusing the system where the value-added tax is exempted for the sales of gold bullion at least 95/1,00 (Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act).

(B) The appearance of gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ‘foreign companies ? ? importer companies ? ? ? 1 (scopies) companies ? 1 (scopies) companies ? Doro-market companies ? ? Export companies ? foreign companies ? the transaction price is paid in sequence from ordinary exporters to the importer companies. However, among the above distribution companies, it is limited to the issuance of tax invoices from large coal companies to the floor wholesalers or specific companies, and there are many cases where gold bullion is not actually traded or transported.

(C) Since a company purchased a prohibited gold that was distributed at the previous stage of its transfer and sold it to the company with an amount equivalent to 10% value-added tax added to the company, it would make it impossible for the country to collect the value-added tax by withdrawing its profit in cash within the short period, and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax paid by the company from the company that received it from the company that received it from the company that received it in the immediately preceding stage of the next stage of the transaction is successively transferred to the country through the method of deducting the input tax amount by using the tax invoice that the company received from the company that received it from the company that received it in the immediately preceding stage of the next stage of the transaction. Ultimately, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax refunded is the ultimate source of the profit from the company that received it from the company that received the refund of the value-added tax. The above profit is distributed to the domestic company that participated in the company that received it from the company that received it from the company that received it from the company that received it from the foreign company.

(D) In order to maximize its profit, a gas supply business shall distribute a maximum quantity of prohibited gold in a short term. ① In order to prevent disputes between the participating companies that may arise therefrom, or accidents such as loss of the price, etc., most of the same states (referred to the money owners: persons preparing for the import and settlement of the first gold bullion from the outside of the gas supply network) shall operate both the exporters and the importers at the same time, ② shall place the former owners to directly trade with the gas supply companies. ② The former owners shall determine the volume of the transaction, unit price, and the margin of the transaction at each stage of the transaction, ③ the former owners shall determine the volume of the transaction at each stage of the transaction, ④ the series of transactions from the importer to the exporter, and ④ the prohibited gold is directly transported to the exporter without delay as a normal transaction ( even if the transportation is conducted at each stage of the transaction, it shall not be a formal transaction).

(2) As to the instant transaction:

(A) After graduating from ○○ University’s ○○○ University, the Plaintiff’s representative and ○○ University had worked in (ju) marketing division, (ju), and (ju) ○○○○○ University. The ○○○○○○○○○’s vice president was a prohibited gold import agent, and the Hong Kong Company’s representative and (ju) ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s representative, the Plaintiff established the Plaintiff corporation with the advice of ○○○○○○. Meanwhile, the tax accountant and customs broker related to the Plaintiff Company’s transactions are the same as that of (ju) ○○.

(B) The transaction flow and settlement time of September 16, 2004 relating to the instant tax invoice 1;

The unit price for transactions shall be as follows:

○ ○

⇒

○

B

⇒

○

M

⇒

○

J

⇒

○

V

⇒

○

G

⇒

○

N

⇒

○

H

⇒

○

○

Time of settlement for payment

13:25(9.16) ← 13:02 ← 12:40 ← 12:37 ← 12;35 ← 12:33 ← 12:17 ← 11:58(원고) ← 14:15

Transaction Price (g/won)

15,140 ? 15,460 ? 15,460 ? 15,487 ? 15,551 ? 14,613 ? 14,640 ? 14,667 ? 14,693 ?

14,842 (Exported Price)

(C) In other words, the prohibition stated in the first tax invoice of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "gold No. 1 of this case") is part of the prohibition 210 kilograms imported by ○○○ on September 15, 2004 by ○○○○○ on the first tax invoice of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the prohibition No. 1 of this case"), which is part of the prohibition 210 kilograms imported by ○○○○○ on September 15, 2004, and (ju) ○○○○○ upon requesting the above ○○○ corporation to sell it to ○○○○ corporation and 11:445 on the present 11:31:50 on the current 110 KG. The first prohibition of this case was part of 10 KG now purchased by ○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○ on the same day.

(D) On the other hand, the settlement between the related companies of this day was made in the reverse order as seen above after borrowing KRW 700 million from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, an exporter company, on the same day, on the day after the payment was made to ○○○○○○○○ on the same day.

Classification

Time

September 16, 2004

Entry and Withdrawal

Amount

Deposit Shares

Financial Institutions

Handling Points

Jinay

Withdrawal of money

700,000,000

○○ ○

○ Bank

○ ○ Dong

11:24:32

Deposit

700,000,000

○ ○

○ Bank

11:41:20

Withdrawal of money

700,000,000

○ ○

○ Bank

Cash

11:41:45

Deposit

700,000,000

OO

○ Bank

○ Points

11:45:27

Withdrawal of money

700,000,000

OO

○ Bank

(E) From the date of importation to the (ju) ○○○, the instant gold was distributed as tax-free gold, and then exported as zero-rate after being distributed as tax-free gold from (ju) to the Plaintiff. The first gold was sold at the stage of converting the first gold into a tax-free gold through (ju) ○○, while the first gold was sold at KRW 14,613 (if the value-added tax is added to the value-added tax, it is higher than the purchase price) at the stage of converting the first gold into a tax-free gold from ○ through ○○. The Plaintiff purchased KRW 808,115,000 in total, KRW 734,65,000 in value-added tax amount to KRW 734,65,00 in value-added tax, KRW 648,185 ($ 1,551 in value-added tax, USD 14,251 in value-added tax if not considered.

(F) The flow of September 20, 2004 transaction related to the tax invoice No. 2 of this case is as follows.

○

⇒

○

K

⇒

○

M

⇒

○

J

⇒

○

V

⇒

○

G

⇒

○

H

⇒

○

대금결제 시간 15:49(9.20) ← 13:56 ← 13:44 ← 11:48 ← 11:47 ← 11:41 ← 11:32(원고) ← 14:46(9.21)

Unit price of transaction (g/ won)

15,003 (Import Price) ? 15,520 ? 15,520 ? 15,547 ? 15,573 ? 14,66 ? 14,693 ? 14,720 ? 14,921 (Export Price)

(G) In other words, the prohibition stated in the second tax invoice of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the prohibition of No. 2 of this case") is part of the prohibition (ju) ○○○ on September 20, 2004 and 400 kilograms imported from ○○○○○○ on September 20, 204, and ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and 10:27:41 and 10:39:42 times, each of the 100 KG contracts was entered into between ○○○ Co., Ltd. and ○○○○○ on September 20, 200 and ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff purchased 70 kilograms on the same day and re-exported to ○○○ on the same day.

(h) On the other hand, the settlement between the related companies of this day was made in the reverse order as seen above after the representative director of the Plaintiff, who is the exporter, borrowed KRW 900 million from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the settlement was made on the same day.

Classification

Time

September 20, 2004

Entry and Withdrawal

Amount

Deposit Shares

Financial Institutions

Handling Points

Jinay

Withdrawal of money

180,000,000

○○ ○

○ Bank

○ ○ Dong Points

Withdrawal of money

780,000,000

○○ ○

○ Bank

○ ○ Points

10:26:32

Deposit

180,000,000

○ ○

○ Bank

10:27:38

Deposit

780,000,000

○ ○

○ Bank

10:59:25

Withdrawal of money

900,000,000

○ ○

○ Bank

10:59:25

Deposit

900,000,000

OO

○ Bank

○○ ○ ○ Points

11:07:50

Withdrawal of money

900,000,000

OO

○ Bank

○○ ○ ○ Points

(i) The gold No. 2 was distributed from the date of importation to the (ju) ○○. From the date of sale to the date of sale, the gold 103,040,000 won of value-added tax was sold at KRW 103,133,440,000 of value-added tax was sold at KRW 10,383.14 ($ 11,147,147,140,140,400 of value-added tax was purchased and exported to the Plaintiff at zero-rate tax rate. However, the gold 14,666 of value at the stage of the first importation to the taxable gold through ○○, which was converted to the taxable gold (g).

(j) Meanwhile, in the above transaction, ○○ actually discontinued without paying the value-added tax to the State, and all related persons were locked.

(k) In each of the instant transactions, the parties to the transaction, including the Plaintiff, did not receive at all a divisional certificate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export, which is necessary for the exporter to get refund of 3% of customs duties while exporting the gold. In light of the general fact that the rate of return on the raw materials for export is 0.3% higher than 1%, no divisional certificate is issued (3% waiver of customs duties). It is difficult for the exporter to take place in the instant transaction normally.

(l) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff traded gold bullion through ○○○ Program only when it is possible to obtain gains by raising international market prices than domestic market prices by closely examining the international market prices, domestic market prices, and exchange rate trends. The Plaintiff’s representative director is not holding IDs capable of using ○○ Programs, and the Plaintiff’s domestic market prices as of September 16, 2004 are 14.17 US dollars per g and are higher than 12.96 US dollars per g, which are the Plaintiff’s export price. The domestic wholesale market price as of September 20, 2004 is higher than 14.20 US dollars per g, which is the Plaintiff’s export price. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13014, Sep. 20, 2004>

(m) The Plaintiff was established on July 8, 2004 and only 2 transactions in the instant case were conducted, and does not actually conduct any business activities. If the value-added tax is not refunded because it was less than the proceeds from supply paid to ○○, the Plaintiff’s sales at a lower price, it is impossible to earn operating profit through the instant transaction itself.

(Ha) Meanwhile, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○’s representative director was indicted of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) and the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the ground that he/she participated in the value-added tax evasion crime by acting as an operator of a taxation-oriented business and was convicted of the conviction. The facts of the crime include transactions made on September 16, 2004 and September 20, 2004.

Evidence Nos. 6 through 31, evidence Nos. 33, evidence Nos. 34-1 through 58, evidence Nos. 2-1 through 21 of evidence Nos. 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, ○○○○ established the Plaintiff’s representative director without any special knowledge about the prohibited export and import business. The two occasions of the instant transaction were exported from ○○○○ without any processing and withdrawal of profits from the refund of value-added tax. The so-called “large carbon business” is a business method widely known to ○○○○’s representative director at the time of the instant transaction, and it appears that ○○○○○’s representative director, who is a prohibited gold-import business, was well aware of the above business behavior as seen above, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s sales and purchase price was considerably less than that of the instant transaction, and that it was difficult for ○○○○○○ to receive taxes from 2 times of the instant transaction to receive taxes from 1 billion won prior to the date of the instant transaction, and that it was considerably impossible for the Plaintiff to receive taxes from 10 million won prior to the date of the instant transaction to 200,000 won, and it appears that it was more difficult for the Plaintiff to receive taxes from 10%.

Therefore, the first and second tax invoices of this case constitute false tax invoices to be denied, and the defendant's disposition of this case on the same premise is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and all of them are rejected.

It is so decided as per Disposition.