The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 24(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 16661 of Dec. 31, 199), Article 9-2(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 193 of Apr. 3, 2001) provides that the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of exported goods, and even in case where a business operator supplies goods through a local letter of credit or a letter of approval for purchase, it shall be included in the above exported goods and applied the zero-rate tax rate.

Meanwhile, in principle, the application of zero tax rate under the VAT system is recognized only for exports in order to prevent double taxation, and the domestic consumption of goods is equivalent to exports, and it is recognized as exceptional and restrictive as prescribed by statutes only when it conforms to the national policy purpose of encouraging foreign exchange earnings within the scope not impairing foreign exchange management and the order of collection of value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu409, Dec. 27, 1983).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, it is justifiable for the court below to determine that the disposition of this case, which denied the application of zero tax rate for domestic transactions with ○○ju, Co., Ltd. under the purchase authorization issued after the expiration of the taxable period to which the time of supply for the goods belongs, was legitimate after compiling the adopted evidence, and recognized facts as stated in its reasoning. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to applying zero tax rate for the exported goods and the application of zero-rate tax rate for transactions under the purchase authorization issued after the taxable period, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 through 5

In light of the purport of applying zero-rate tax and relevant statutes, where a supplier of goods sells goods by applying zero-rate tax with the knowledge of the defect in obtaining a false purchase approval or issuing a false purchase approval, or where the purchaser knowingly sells goods without the purpose of export with the knowledge of the fact that he/she uses a defective purchase approval form with the intent of evading taxes, and where there are special circumstances that undermine the order of collection of value-added tax, such as where he/she does not know of the fact that he/she knowingly uses a defective purchase approval form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du3642,

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the transaction of this case with the above company is not zero-rate, on the ground that the plaintiff conspireds to evade tax and juice ○○, ○○○, ○○ Trade, ○○○ Unemployment, and ○○ Unemployment Co., Ltd., or the trade of this case in this case, even if not offered, there were defects in the purchase approval, or that the above company was aware of the fact that it would use tax evasion with the intent to evade tax by selling gold bullion purchased from the plaintiff in Korea, not

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and evidence in light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the rules of evidence and the misapprehension of legal principles

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.