"Transactions"

B. The Plaintiff, during the instant taxable period, was the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was a total of 108 transactions during the instant taxable period.

The supply of raw materials to BB, which constitutes an export transaction and constitutes value-added tax.

Under the law, zero tax rate is applied, and the value-added tax was reported on this premise.

C. However, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service: the instant transaction between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

Considering that it falls under internal transactions, the defendant was notified of taxation data to the defendant, and the defendant was about 2014.

1. Imposition of value-added tax of KRW 207,356,414 and additional tax of KRW 162,206,906;

Division 369,563,320 won for the second period from August 1, 2014 to the second period from August 2012

Value-added tax of KRW 877,179,729 and additional tax of KRW 534,428,271 plus KRW 1,411,608,000;

Each disposition of imposition (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above dispositions of imposition") was taken.

D. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for review with the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection on September 4, 2014.

on April 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 14, 15, Eul evidence 1 to 10

statement of each chapter, including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleading

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant transaction constitutes an export transaction prior to the change for the following reasons:

b) The zero-rate tax rate should be applied under the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, each disposition of this case is unlawful.

(c)

A) The former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24359, Feb. 15, 2013)

Article 24 (1) 1 of the former Act (hereinafter the same shall apply) exports of domestic goods to a foreign country.

The transaction of this case is defined in BB only by the buyer on the face of export and the subject of payment.

It is only changed to the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the Plaintiff taken raw materials out of Korea to a foreign country.

Since the transaction of this case is identical to that prior to the change, the transaction of this case also takes domestic goods out of the country.

It is an export transaction.

B) Even if the instant transactions were to be seen as domestic transactions between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

Do ① In light of the Plaintiff’s direct supply of raw materials to BB, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assistant.

A transaction between household persons is formally applicable to the transaction immediately preceding that of export, and is in substance substantially.

Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act.

A local letter of credit or a written confirmation of purchase prescribed in paragraph (2) 1 shall be supplied for the supply of raw materials

N. However, in light of the fact that the instant transaction is a part of the export transaction on the trade structure, etc.,

The instant transaction is opened by the former Value-Added Tax Act (Law No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013) under the principle of substantial taxation.

Article 11(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 24(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

It should be the same as export transaction by local letter of credit, etc. under subparagraph 1 of paragraph.

.

2) Although the zero-rate tax rate cannot be applied to the instant transaction, the Plaintiff’s trade structure changes.

The light is solely by the request of BB and the Intervenor, who is the opposite contractual party, and if any,

If the Intervenor had given a detailed explanation to the Plaintiff regarding the details of the changes, such as the reasons for the changes, etc.

The plaintiff has taken legitimate measures to prevent such problems.

D. There are justifiable grounds for not being able to prove that the Plaintiff did not perform its duty, and each disposition of this case is subject to each disposition of this case.

The imposition of additional tax is illegal by deviating from and abusing discretionary power.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether it is eligible for zero tax rate

A) Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is applicable to zero tax rate.

Shipping stipulates the supply of goods, and Article 6(1) provides for the supply of goods for taxable transactions.

class shall deliver or transfer goods pursuant to any contractual or legal cause.

Article 24(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act" shall be the same.

Export under Paragraph 1(1)1 of the same Article provides that an export shall be any of the following:

No. 1 provides that "one of them is shipping domestic goods out of Korea to a foreign country".

First, in light of the above relevant laws and regulations, the instant transaction as alleged by the Plaintiff.

A. Shipping domestic goods from a foreign country under Article 24(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

applicable to the supply of exported goods subject to zero tax rate (1)

The health unit, Gap's 6 through 9, 12, 13, 17, Eul's 11, Eul's 11, and the witness, respectively;

The following circumstances, i.e., the assertion of the overall purport of the pleading, which are acknowledged as the testimony of Cho Young-ri,

Unlike in the current transaction, the Plaintiff’s detailed statement of acceptance of each export declaration related to the instant transaction

In preparing the Intervenor’s Intervenor, not BB, was written as the buyer, and the Defendant, not BB, was written as the buyer.

The payment from the supplementary intervenor was received, and ② the goods co-ordination between the plaintiff and the supplementary intervenor

The Intervenor joining the Defendant even if the wage contract was made ex post facto in 2013.

Upon request, the transaction structure with BB around March 2009 was modified as the transaction of this case.

as long as it is recognized by itself, the buyer between the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, and the BB at that time; and

There was a mutual agreement between BB to change the subject of payment from BB to the Intervenor joining the Defendant

(3) The Intervenor joining the Defendant is a domestic law separate from BB, a foreign subsidiary.

A trade entity with a legal personality is a trade entity, and even if the plaintiff is directly involved in the raw materials, the plaintiff is directly involved in BB in China

even if transported, it is in accordance with the designation of the place of supply by the buyer for the Intervenor joining the Defendant

4. The plaintiff also reported value-added tax and supplied goods to the defendant joining the defendant.

In full view of the facts indicated as the recipient, the parties to the instant transaction are the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assistant.

It is reasonable to see that the transaction in this case is a participant, and the transaction in this case is between domestic legal persons.

Article 24 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to the transaction.

such domestic goods as are exported to a foreign country subject to zero tax rate;

shall not be deemed to fall under class.

B) Next, Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act and the former Ministry

Export transaction by local letter of credit, etc. as provided by Article 24 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act;

We examine whether it can be seen equally.

Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act; Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act

Paragraph 2, Article 9-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to the supply of exported goods.

of this section shall apply, and the entrepreneur shall supply by local letter of credit or written confirmation of purchase.

In the case of goods, zero tax rate shall be applied to such exported goods, but "purchase confirmation" here.

20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods belongs by the head of a foreign exchange bank;

documents, such as export letters of credit, and their numbers and shipments with respect to goods for export;

In the meantime, the application of zero tax rate in the VAT system is stipulated as follows.

In principle, in order to prevent double taxation, only exports are recognized and domestic consumption is consumed.

foreign exchange management and the collection order of value-added tax for the purposes of export.

to the extent not consistent with the national policy purpose of encouraging foreign exchange earnings, the law shall only apply

It is recognized as exceptional and restrictive as prescribed by Ordinance. Accordingly, a purchase confirmation etc. is recognized as such.

applicable zero tax rate to the goods exported for such goods that are supplied to Korea

Acts and subordinate statutes shall be strictly interpreted (Supreme Court Decision 83Nu409 Decided December 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu409 Decided December 27, 19

See Supreme Court Decision 2007Du22863 Decided April 9, 2009

With respect to the instant case, as seen earlier, the instant transaction is between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

It constitutes a domestic transaction between the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and domestic trade in accordance with a purchase confirmation, etc.

applicable provisions of the zero-rate tax rate to the exported goods of such goods.

In light of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assistance to the Defendant

A local letter of credit or purchase certificate has not been issued while making the instant transaction with the intervenor;

Since this case's transaction is recognized, Article 11 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the Value-Added Tax Act

It is the same as an export transaction by a local letter of credit, etc. under Article 24 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree.

not apply to the transaction of this case. Accordingly, each disposition of this case which did not apply zero tax rate to the transaction of this case

It cannot be said that the Plaintiff violated the principle of quality taxation, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the imposition of additional tax is illegal

Under the tax law, the penalty tax is to facilitate the exercise of the taxation right and the realization of the taxation claim.

(2) If a taxpayer violates any of the obligations referred to in the law, such as reporting and tax payment, without any justifiable reason;

taxpayer's intent or negligence as administrative sanctions imposed under the conditions as prescribed by individual tax laws;

On the other hand, it is unreasonable that the taxpayer did not know of the obligation.

for the fulfillment of its obligations, there are circumstances in which such obligations may be justified, or the performance of such obligations.

No reason is attributable to the failure to perform his/her duties, such as when there is a reason that it is unreasonable to expect the deceased to do so.

(1) The court shall not impose any penalty on the party, if there is a justifiable reason (Supreme Court 1 November 14, 1995).

See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10181 Decided 95Nu101). The land, error, etc. of statutes cannot be caused by the breach of the duty.

The grounds for appeal do not fall under one of the following (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3873, Apr. 23, 2009).

As to the instant case, recognition of the overall purport of the oral argument as to the aforementioned evidence

The following circumstances, namely, ① the goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor

Even if it was made after the lapse of 2013, the Plaintiff’s transaction prior to the change with BB.

A party to a transaction at the request of the Intervenor joining the Defendant and BB around March 2009, which had been in progress.

B from B to the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and accordingly, the Defendant’s assistance during the instant taxable period was changed.

The transaction of this case was continued to have been conducted by the buyer and the subject of payment, and ② the Plaintiff’s station

When reporting the value-added tax, the Intervenor himself/herself specified as the person who received the goods.

or otherwise, it is sufficiently aware that the other party has been changed from BB to the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

(3) The Value-Added Tax Act explicitly provides for the zero-rate transaction.

As seen earlier, the application of zero tax rate for the reasons alleged by the Plaintiff for the instant transaction.

In light of the fact that it cannot be interpreted that it constitutes an export transaction subject to the claim, etc., the Plaintiff

It can not be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for failure to perform the obligation to report value-added tax, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.

The second instance decision

National Rotations

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

The imposition of value-added tax of KRW 207,356,414 for the first term of June 1, 2014 and additional tax of KRW 162,206,90 for the first term of KRW 369,563,320 for the second term of August 1, 2014 and the second term of value-added tax of KRW 87,179,729 for the second term of KRW 209 through KRW 534,428,271 for the second term of KRW 1,41,608,00 for the second term of KRW 209 and its additional tax of KRW 534,429 for the second term of KRW 209 for the second term of August 1, 2014 shall be revoked, respectively.

A. From around 2008, the Plaintiff had been engaged in export trade in the form of supplying the printed circuit board raw materials (hereinafter “raw materials”) to BB (hereinafter “pre-revision transaction”). From March 2009, the Plaintiff, upon the request of BB and the Intervenor, changed the buyer of the raw materials on the export surface from BB to the Defendant joining the Defendant, and changed the transaction structure in the form of direct payment from the Defendant joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the changed transaction structure”) (hereinafter “the instant taxable period”).