2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiff's status

A corporation that has entered into a business contract for the transfer of gold bullion from April 2001 to Japan's Hong Kong corporation (hereinafter referred to as "○ Hong Kong corporation") and engages in the import business of gold bullion and the import and export agency business of gold bullion, etc.

B. The Plaintiff’s gold transaction

(i) the second term portion in 2002 and the first term portion in 2003; and

The gold bullion amounting to KRW 7,281,979,000 from four wholesalers, including ○○○○○.com (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○.com”) to KRW 7,281,979,000, imported from the Hong Kong corporations in the Hong Kong corporations, shall be zero-rate (hereinafter referred to as “ zero-rate transaction”).

(ii) the taxable period from 271 to 2004; and

The sales amounting to KRW 59,133,945,00 of the duty-free gold bullion imported from the Hong Kong corporations of ○○○○○○○, and sales to five wholesalers, such as the sub-salkin company (hereinafter referred to as the "sub-salkin company"), recommended through the Korea National Fund Brokerage Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Re-salkin company").

C. Defendant’s correction and notification on June 1, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”)

1) The zero tax rate of the value-added tax for the second period of time, 2002, and the value-added tax for the first period of time of 2003, 918, 892, 750, respectively (hereinafter “instant one disposition”) shall be excluded from the application of zero-rate tax, deeming that the pertinent zero-rate tax transaction was a modified transaction based on a false export contract and is not subject to zero-rate tax.

2) With respect to the instant tax-free transaction, each of the tax invoices issued by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “tax invoices of this case”) shall be deemed as false tax invoices, and thus, the value-added tax for the second period of 203 was 721,291,100,100, value-added tax for the first period of 2004, value-added tax for 162,707,900, and value-added tax for the second period of 2004, KRW 67,986,00 for value-added tax for the second period of 204 (hereinafter “instant second disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1

Note 5, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-1 to 3, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-1 to 6-6

Statement

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case shall be unlawful and revoked for the following reasons.

1) The Plaintiff confirmed whether to issue a purchase certificate issued by four wholesalers, including ○○○○.com, and traded the zero tax rate in this case. The goods supplied under a purchase certificate are subject to zero-rate tax regardless of whether they are exported or not. However, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff on a different premise.

2) Since the Plaintiff was actually engaged in the instant tax-free transactions, such as the instant tax invoice, between five wholesalers recommended through the Korea Financial Brokerage Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff, even though the instant tax invoice does not constitute a false tax invoice, the Defendant issued the instant disposition against the Plaintiff on a different premise.

(b) Related statutes;

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) From around 2002 to 2004, gold bullion imports gold bullion and distributes it through various stages of zero-rate or tax exemption through the abuse of the zero-rate or tax exemption system among precious metal companies located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The so-called wide-scale carbon business, which imports gold bullion and sells it through zero-rate or tax exemption, converted it into a taxation amount to the so-called wide-scale carbon business (an enterprise evading the value-added tax by withdrawing, concealing, and closing its profit within the short time period after purchasing the prohibited gold with zero-rate or tax exemption, and then then distributes it to a taxation amount through a variety of wholesale businesses, and the exporter did not pay the value-added tax, and the exporter only carried out the so-called wide-scale carbon business in the form of receiving the value-added tax which

2) The instant gold bullion imported by the Plaintiff from the Hong Kong corporations of ○○○○○ was traded in a way that the instant gold bullion was exported to the Hong Kong corporations through the 2-3-level wholesale companies (hereinafter referred to as “transport chain”) by the Plaintiff via the 2-3-level wholesale companies (hereinafter referred to as “the 2-3-level wholesale companies”).

3) Among the parties to the transaction, a company that purchased the instant gold bullion as zero-rate or tax exemption and sold it by converting it to the transaction subject to value-added tax is liable to pay the total value-added tax, including the added value arising from the previous transaction, but in fact, did not fulfill the obligation to pay the value-added tax due to the closure of business

4) The instant gold bullion was added among the Plaintiff, the importer, and the exporter, and the date of import and the date of export do not vary to the extent of the same or daily (According to transport evidence related to the transaction of the instant gold bullion, the part of the instant gold bullion was imported and exported immediately after being exported). According to the details of payment settlement related to the transaction of the instant gold bullion, most of the wholesalers that purchased the instant gold bullion from the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the previous phase to the Plaintiff in sequence, such as paying the import price to the Plaintiff.

5) The wholesalers engaged in the transaction with the Plaintiff, including ○○○○○.com and re-satons, both were accused by the National Tax Service of the facts charged to the prosecution by the National Tax Service.

Evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 8 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 11-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 12-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 14-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 17 through 21, Eul evidence Nos. 22, Eul evidence Nos. 23, Eul evidence Nos. 24 through 26, Eul evidence Nos. 27 through 30, Eul evidence Nos. 31-1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) The plaintiff's first proposal is substituted by the plaintiff

A) Whether the Plaintiff actually exported gold bullion supplied to four wholesalers, such as ○○○○.com does not affect whether the zero-rate tax rate for the instant transaction is applied, and even if the purchase certificate presented by the above wholesalers was issued based on a false export contract, it cannot be deemed as invalid as a matter of course, barring special circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the defect in the process of issuing the purchase certificate, the supply of the goods by the above purchase certificate can not be immediately excluded from the subject of zero-rate tax application under the Value-Added Tax Act, and in this case, the Plaintiff’s special circumstance, such as the existence of the taxation requirement and the burden of proof as to the legality of the tax imposition disposition, should be demonstrated by the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15490, Jun. 12, 2008).

B) However, it is insufficient to find that the above facts were recognized, and the Plaintiff’s transfer of gold bullion to Korea by ○○ Hong Kong Corporation, which was engaged in gold bullion import business, import and export agency business, and the Plaintiff’s entry in Eul evidence 15 alone are insufficient to find that the Plaintiff was aware that there was a defect in the process of issuing a purchase confirmation at the time of the instant zero-rate transaction, or that the gold bullion sold to four wholesalers, such as ○○○○.com, was not exported and distributed in Korea, and there is no other evidence to support otherwise, the Plaintiff’s imposition of value-added tax by excluding zero-rate tariff transaction in the instant case is unlawful.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this point was with merit.

2) The plaintiff's second proposal is replaced by the plaintiff's second proposal

A) Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the public supply of goods as taxable subject to value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on the basis of all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-stage transaction tax, delivery or transfer of goods includes all acts of causing transfer of the right to use and consume, regardless of the existence of profits actually acquired. In this case, the issue of whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined individually and specifically by taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose and process of the transaction by each transaction party, the form and manner of the transaction, the person to whom profits accrue, and the relationship of payment of prices, etc., and the tax invoice issued in the transaction process constitutes a transaction without actual delivery or transfer of goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du28124, Dec. 30, 2006).

B) However, as seen earlier, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff sold the gold bullion imported from ○○ Hong Kong corporations to five wholesalers, including the re-salivists recommended through Korea Fund Brokerage Co., Ltd., and transferred the said gold bullion, the Plaintiff paid the price in full and issued the instant tax invoice to the above wholesalers, etc., the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion exempt from value-added tax at the intermediate stage and then supplied it to the persons who were not recommended for tax exemption and then prepared and issued the tax invoice and paid the amount of the value-added tax, and there is so-called wide-scale coal companies that did not pay the amount of the value-added tax, solely because the instant tax exemption transaction constitutes a nominal transaction with the appearance of the Plaintiff’s actual transaction of the so-called gold bullion business, or that the instant tax invoice was written differently by the person who actually received the gold bullion, and it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a false tax invoice with the Plaintiff’s actual supplier, and thus, constitutes a tax invoice different from the facts.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is with merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim for this case is accepted because there are reasons for the plaintiff's claim.