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

Cheong-gu Office

On September 22, 2014, the Defendant revoked the imposition of the penalty tax of KRW 8,148,590 on the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, from March 4, 2014 to May 19, 2014, purchased gold posts, etc. 66 times from precious metal retailers located at 00 cc, etc. from March 4, 2014 to in May 19, 2014, and reported the failure to issue cash receipts in the name of the Plaintiff himself/herself or a third party when cash receipts have not been issued, and received a monetary reward of KRW 233,231,00 from May 30 to October 17, 2014.

B. On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name "00" and on July 23, 2014

In the future, when applying for a blanket change of the use of cash receipts for income deduction issued ex officio for business operators, the amount of value-added tax shall be KRW 815,859,00 (hereinafter referred to as "purchase amount of this case") out of the purchase amount of KRW 1,39,621,00 (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase amount of this case") as the purchase amount.

C. Around August 2014, the Defendant issued a prior notice of taxation that the Plaintiff would not deduct the purchase price of the instant case from the input tax amount under Article 106-4(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff was a gold business operator under Article 106-4(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but did not deposit the purchase price of the instant case and the relevant value-added tax amount through the gold transaction account. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the prior notice of taxation that the Plaintiff would levy penalty KRW 8,148,590 for the portion of the application for excess

D. The Plaintiff filed an application for pre-assessment review on December 5, 2014, but rendered a non-adopted decision on December 5, 2014, and the Defendant issued a correction and notification of KRW 8,148,590 on January 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but filed an administrative appeal on January 22, 2015, but was dismissed on April 22, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased gold products as a consumer's position and received a normal reward in relation to the purchase of gold products to receive monetary rewards. As such, the Plaintiff was not a business entity but a consumer. Therefore, the purchase amount of this case should be deducted pursuant to Article 39 (1) 8 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the disposition of this case was unlawful on a different premise.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

According to Article 106-4 (1) and (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014; hereinafter the same) and Article 106-4 (1) and (3) of the same Act, a gold-related product supplier or a gold-related product is required to establish a gold trading account. If a gold-related product is supplied by a gold-related business operator from another gold business operator, the price of the gold-related product and the value-added tax shall be deposited into the supplied business operator, and the person prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In addition, Article 38 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that if the gold business operator supplied a gold-related product fails to deposit the value-added tax under paragraph (3) 2, the tax amount stated in the tax invoice issued by the gold business operator who supplied the gold-related product shall not be deemed the input tax amount deducted from the output tax amount, notwithstanding Articles 37 and 38 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

In this case, according to the above evidence and the whole purport of the argument, the plaintiff filed an application for full refund of value-added tax after completing the registration of the gold-related product with the trade name of '00' and deducting the purchase price corresponding to the purchase price of the gold-related product purchased in the status of the business operator when the plaintiff purchased the gold-related product as a consumer and did not receive the input tax deduction pursuant to Article 38 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and even if the plaintiff did not purchase the gold-related product in the status of the business operator, the plaintiff did not receive the input tax deduction pursuant to Article 106-4 (1) and (3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition of this case is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.