The remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. On the imposition of value-added tax

Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods as taxable subject to value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-stage transaction tax, "delivery or transfer" under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of causing the transfer of rights to use and consume goods, regardless of the existence of profits actually acquired (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001; 9Du9247, etc.). In this case, the issue of whether a specific transaction among a series of transactions constitutes the supply of goods as provided for in the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined on the grounds that there are no specific transaction under Article 29(1)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act, including the purpose and attitude of each transaction party, the payment of profits, and the payment.

According to the facts duly established by the court below and the records, from February 11, 2004 to October 11, 2004, the plaintiff purchased gold bullion of 1,139 kilograms (hereinafter "the gold bullion of this case") in total from eight business operators, including the corporation, and received delivery of the gold bullion of this case on the date of purchase (hereinafter "the transaction of this case"), and then paid all the price (hereinafter "the tax invoice of this case"), and delivered tax invoices under the transaction of this case from the supplier of this case (hereinafter "the tax invoice of this case"). The plaintiff exported the gold bullion of this case to the Hong Kong on the date of the transaction of this case 974 kilograms from among the gold bullion of this case (hereinafter "purchase transaction of gold bullion of this part" of this case, "the tax invoice of this case" of this case, "the tax invoice of this case"), and the remaining 165 kilograms from "the domestic corporation's sales of gold bullion of this case" of this case 2.

Examining these facts and records in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the entire transaction of this case until the import and export of the gold bullion (hereinafter “the entire transaction of this case”) takes place on a daily basis, and the fact that there is a so-called wide carbon company that purchased gold bullion exempt from value-added tax at the intermediate stage and supplied it to a person who did not obtain a recommendation for tax exemption and did not pay the amount equivalent to value-added tax while preparing and delivering a tax invoice is located, it is difficult to conclude that the transaction of this case, one of the entire transaction of this case, is not the supply of goods subject to value-added tax as a nominal transaction. Accordingly, the tax invoice of this case received through the transaction of this case cannot be deemed to be different from the actual supplier on the invoice.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the first tax invoice of this case is different from the supplier on the invoice, and that the second tax invoice of this case was merely received without the supply of goods, on the ground that the transaction of this case was a single transaction included in the entire transaction of this case, in which the so-called wide carbon company was opened. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the "supply of goods" and "tax invoice different from the fact", thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the imposition of corporate tax

According to Articles 76 (5) and 116 (2) 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006), "the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect an amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount as corporate tax in cases where a corporation is supplied goods from a businessman in connection with its business and fails to receive a tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act," and Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that "if an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods, he shall deliver a tax invoice stating the registration number and name or title of the supplier, the registration number of the recipient, the value of supply, value-added tax amount, etc."

As seen earlier, insofar as it cannot be deemed that the first transaction of this case is not a supply of goods subject to value-added tax, it is reasonable to view that the first tax invoice of this case received as a legitimate tax invoice under Article 16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act is also a legitimate tax invoice. However, the court below determined that the imposition disposition of the corporate tax of this case was lawful on the premise that the first tax invoice of this case is a different tax invoice from that of a supplier. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on additional tax

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. As to the surcharge and increased surcharge of value-added tax and corporate tax

The court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to the extent of filing an objection based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal should specify the grounds of final appeal and explain specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below violated the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Nu1235, Dec. 12, 1997; 2007Du23187, Jan. 24, 2008).

In this case, there is no indication in the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and in the appellate brief, the appellate brief does not expressly state specific and explicit grounds on which part of the judgment of the court below that deemed the lawsuit seeking revocation of additional dues and aggravated additional dues is unlawful. Thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.