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

A. From May 30, 2004 to October 29, 2004, the Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale and retail business with the trade name of ○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○-dong from ○○○○○○-dong to ○○○○○-dong.

B. The Plaintiff reported the value-added tax for the first period of 204, and filed a tax invoice for the purchase of gold bullion amounting to KRW 44,33,000 (referring to gold bullion in the status of raw materials, such as Gold, Gold, Gold, and Gold, which is at least 95/1,000) in total received from ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○○○”) upon filing the return of value-added tax for the first period of 2004, three copies of the purchase tax invoice for the aggregate amounting to KRW 59,253,000 received from ○○○○○○, upon filing the return of the value-added tax for the second period of 204, and notified the Defendant of each of the above tax invoice for the purchase of KRW 7,18,279,00 as the result of each of the tax invoice for the purchase of KRW 7,270,00 as the result of each of the instant tax invoice for each of the instant tax invoice.

D. On April 3, 2006, the Defendant recognized the instant tax invoice as a processing tax invoice without real transaction, and corrected and notified the Plaintiff of value-added tax amounting to KRW 6,137,940 for the first period of 2004, and KRW 9,829,680 for the second period of 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On October 30, 2006, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal under the National Tax Tribunal No. 2006Do3663, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on June 26, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, A1, 2, 8, 9, 1, 6 (including each number)

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion equivalent to the instant tax invoice from the instant trade corporation and paid the price in full by means of remitting it to the passbook of the instant trade corporation, the instant tax invoice is a normal transaction. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant tax invoice without actual transaction, is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a "necessary entry item") is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded

C. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. Thus, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice of this case is not accompanied by real transactions based on direct evidence or all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Nu663, Jun. 23, 1987; 85Nu515, Mar. 24, 1987).

(2) In light of each description and image of ○○○, A2-7 (including each number), the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant tax invoice was a false tax invoice that does not accompany real transactions, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise (it cannot be recognized that the instant tax invoice was issued that the instant tax invoice was not accompanied by real transactions to the Plaintiff who purchased the instant gold bullion from ○○○, Kim○, and Kim○○, a representative director or actual manager of the instant transaction corporation, even if it was based on each description described in 3, 4, 7-14).

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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