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

The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5:

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation closed its business on June 30, 2008, and received four copies of gold bullion purchase tax invoices of an amount equivalent to 266,447,950 won (293,092,745 won) during the second taxable period of 2006 from the OE (hereinafter “OE”) during the second taxable period of 2006, and deducted the input tax amount from the output tax amount under each of the above tax invoices when filing a return of 271 value added tax in 2006, and then deducted the input tax amount under each of the above tax invoices from the output tax amount. The Plaintiff received 137,280,070 won from the OE during the first taxable period of 2007 from the input tax amount of 137,50,070 won (the aggregate of the supply and tax amount of value-added taxes, 108,070 won and the total of the input tax amount of 90,197,0900 won (hereinafter referred to as the above tax amount of △△△”).

B. On April 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff received each of the tax invoices in the above Chapter 8 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant tax invoices”) without purchasing gold bullion from OOE and △△ Health Care; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 2006 at KRW 41,150,220; and (c) the amount of the value-added tax for the first period of 2007 at KRW 35,171,870, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”).

C. On August 9, 2010, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 9, 2010, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 17, 201.

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

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the tax invoices of this case was prepared according to the actual transaction, and the Plaintiff processed each gold bullion purchased from OOE and △△ Health, and sold it through the Doote, △△, Inc., but otherwise, each of the dispositions of this case on the premise that each of the tax invoices of this case is false invoice, is unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

As a result of the research conducted by the AA head of the tax office and the BB head of the tax office, an entity that is unable to sell gold bullion because it purchased the gold bullion, and the Plaintiff is supplied with gold bullion from a third party, not from the Plaintiff. Ultimately, each of the tax invoices of this case constitutes a tax invoice on which the supplier is falsely stated, and which is written differently from the facts provided for in Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, each of the dispositions of this case, for which the input tax amount under each of the tax invoices of this case

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, or all of the statements mentioned in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and subparagraphs 3 through 5 above, unless there is a dispute between the parties concerned, or if there is an overall statement of

(1) The details of each of the instant tax invoices, the date of acceptance of gold bullion from OOE and △△ Health, and the date of payment by the Plaintiff are as follows.

(2) The following details are omitted:

(2) In each of the above transactions, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of sale of goods, a certificate of actual goods transaction, and a statement of transaction between the Plaintiff and the △△ Health Center, respectively, and the price of goods was paid by means of transfer or remittance to each of the banks listed in the OOC and △△ Health Center.

(3) Meanwhile, during the second taxable period of 2006, the Plaintiff sold gold products equivalent to KRW 327,000,000, and gold products equivalent to KRW 571,000,000 during the first taxable period of 207, respectively.

(4) However, on January 6, 2008, the head of the AAA tax office's investigation results on suspicion of data on OEd, OEd from October 6, 2004 to December 31, 2006 received 19,489,000,000 won for purchase tax invoice 262 19,000,000 won for the same period, and 13 of the same period, it was investigated as an intermediate wholesaler that issued and delivered the sales tax invoice 262 19,000,000 won to the wholesale company. Moreover, on June 6, 2008, △△△△△ Group's investigation results, △△△△ Group's purchase tax invoice 210,489,000 won from May 2, 2007 to December 30, 2007; and △△△ Group's actual tax invoice 200,700,700,000 won without any equivalent amount of the tax invoice 1.

C. Determination

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false shall, in principle, be borne by the defendant who is the tax authority. Therefore, the defendant must prove that each of the tax invoices of this case is not accompanied by real transactions based on direct evidence or all the circumstances.

As to the instant case, the following circumstances revealed by adding to the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, ① the time when the Plaintiff remitted money to the OOE and △△ Group and its amount are consistent with the date and value of each tax invoice of this case. On the other hand, there is no evidence to deem that the transferred money was returned again to the Plaintiff. ② The Plaintiff exported considerable portion of precious metal manufactured as a precious metal manufacturer established on September 7, 1998 from the United States, etc. to foreign countries, such as the United States, etc., and it appears that the Plaintiff used gold as raw materials for the manufacturing industry using gold metal as raw materials, such as manufacturing precious metal through the Kazaktan overseas sub-factory, and then consumed a considerable amount of gold as raw materials. ③ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff purchased gold products sold on the OE of 2006 and 197 from the △△△△△△△, the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the raw materials and the fact that each of the instant products was not verified as unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.