Each disposition of imposition of KRW 294,364,230, value-added tax for the first term of 2002, KRW 6,824,140,440, corporate tax for the business year 200, KRW 10,475,520, corporate tax for the business year 2001, KRW 2915,042,160, and KRW 1,340,263,220 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On September 22, 199, the Plaintiff runs wholesale and retail business of precious metal and gold-free gold (gold in the state of raw materials, such as gold ingot and dubs, which is at least 995/100 in the net price of which is at least 995/100). The Plaintiff was a company closed on February 18, 2005.

B. From January 28, 2004 to July 31 of the same year, the Defendant discovered the following suspected facts as a result of conducting a tax investigation on the Plaintiff.

1) From December 22, 200 to June 30, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a store at the ○○ ○○ Gun’s ○○ ○○ Gun’s ○○ ○○ Gun’s ○○ Gun’s ○○ ○○ Gun’s ○○ ○○ Gun’s ○ ○ ○○ Gun’s ○ ○ ○ ○ Gun’s ○ ○ ○ Do, and (b) established a variable loan using credit cards to casino visitors

2) The Plaintiff was issued a false tax invoice regarding the purchase of gold bullion from ○○○ Furx (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Furx”) totaling KRW 20.647 billion ( KRW 916 billion for the second period of 2001, KRW 12.23 billion for the first period of 2002, KRW 12.22 billion for the second period of 2002, and KRW 7.49 billion for the second period of 2002).

3) The Plaintiff was issued a false tax invoice concerning the purchase of gold bullion 41 billion won in total (28 million won in second period in 2001, 25.782 billion won in first period in 2002, and 15.18 billion won in second period in 2002) from ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”); and the purchase of gold bullion 1.5 billion won in 2002.

4) In 2001, the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice on the purchase of gold bullion amounting to KRW 497 million in total, from the second half-year 2001 ○○ System ( Jeju) (hereinafter “○○ System”).

5) The Plaintiff was issued a false tax invoice concerning the purchase of gold bullion at KRW 166 million in total (63 million in the first half of 2001, and KRW 13 million in the second half of 2001) from ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”).

6) The Plaintiff, during the first period of 2003, issued a false tax invoice concerning the purchase of gold bullion equivalent to KRW 10.575 billion in total from the supply value (hereinafter referred to as “○○ gold”) during the first period of 2003, and sold gold bullion amounting to KRW 4.239 billion in total to the Plaintiff during the same period.

7) The Plaintiff received a tax invoice different from the fact on the purchase price of gold bullion amounting to KRW 24 million from the supply price of KRW 2.4 million in the second period of 2003 ( Jeju) ○○ Unemployment (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Unemployment”).

8) In 2003, the Plaintiff sold gold bullion equivalent to KRW 167 million as non-data to ○○○○ World (hereinafter “○○○ World”) at the first time.

C. Accordingly, on the basis of the facts charged above on March 2, 2005, the defendant issued each disposition of imposition (including additional tax; hereinafter collectively referred to as "the disposition of this case") against the plaintiff as follows.

(1) From December 22, 200 to June 30, 2002, the Plaintiff considered 8,092,891,000 won in total from each credit card sales (supply price) of the head office and branch office due to 'the card tin' as an amount equivalent to the gold bullion re-saleed as non-data, and imposed the value-added tax and additional tax on each of the first-term portions of 2000 to 2002 and the first-term portion of 200 to 2002. The Plaintiff received 1,602,392,000 won in total from 8,902,181,000 won in total, equivalent to 18% of the above credit card sales (supply price) discount rate of 1,602,392,000 won in total from 200 to 200 million won in total, and added the input tax amount to 200 to 206,200 won in each tax invoice 2.

3) The Plaintiff did not deduct the input tax amount of KRW 41 billion on the aggregate of supply values on the tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff received from ○○ Ra, from each value-added tax for the second period from 201 to 2002.

4) The Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount of KRW 497 million on the aggregate of the supply values on the tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff received from ○○○ World from the value-added tax for the second period of 2001.

5) The Plaintiff was not allowed to deduct the input tax amount of KRW 166,00,000,000 on the supply value on the tax invoice different from the fact that the Plaintiff received from ○○ Youth, from each value-added tax for the first period of 2001 and the second period of 2001, and the said KRW 166,00,000,000 was not included in the corporate tax for the business year of 201

6) The Plaintiff deducted the input tax amount of KRW 10.575 billion in total on the supply value on the tax invoice different from the fact that it was received from the Plaintiff, from the value-added tax for the first period of 2003. The amount of KRW 10.575 billion was excluded from the corporate tax for the business year 2003. The amount of KRW 4.239 billion in total from the value of gold bullion sold to the Plaintiff as non-data was imposed the penalty tax for the first period of 2003,000 won in total, and the amount of KRW 4.239 billion in total from the value of gold bullion sold to him was added to the gross income for the business year 2003.

7) The Plaintiff’s input tax amount of KRW 240 million on a different tax invoice from the fact that the Plaintiff received from ○○ Unemployment was not deducted from value added tax for the second period of 2003.

8) In 2003, the Plaintiff imposed the additional tax for the first term portion of the gold bullion amounting to KRW 167 million in total, which was sold to ○○○○ World as non-data, and the said KRW 167 million was added to the gross income for the business year of 2003.

D. On June 1, 2005, the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on June 1, 2005, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on January 25, 2006.

Each entry of Gap's 1 to 3 evidence, Eul's 1 to 6, and 11 (including each number)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the facts alleged in the above suspicion by the defendant are different from facts as follows, and therefore, the disposition of this case based on the facts alleged in the above suspicion is unlawful.

1) The Plaintiff sold gold bullion to the casino users with the actual credit card, and there was no change-based financing loan (hereinafter referred to as " card-based tin") in collusion with the pawnpos bank, etc. that re-purchasing gold bullion from casino customers.

2) The tax invoices on the purchase of gold bullion delivered by the Plaintiff from ○○○○, ○○ Ra, ○○○ Mad, ○○○ Cheong, ○○ lux, and ○ Unemployment are all based on actual transactions such as the entries, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff processed the purchase from the above enterprises.

3) The Plaintiff did not have any omission in sales by selling gold bullion to ○○, ○○○, etc. as non-data.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff's credit card transaction

A) Around December 22, 2000, the Plaintiff established a branch office in ○○○○○-○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, and operated the instant branch office on March 3, 2001 and on September 18, 2002. The instant branch sold gold bullion only by credit card at the instant branch.

B) On August 19, 2004, the Plaintiff and its representative director: (a) sold gold bullion equivalent to KRW 7,719,464,129 in total for the purpose of cash financing over a total of 5,408 times from January 4, 2001 to June 1, 2002; (b) sold gold bullion totaling 7,719,464,129 in total for the purpose of cash financing over a total of 5,408; and (c) there was insufficient proof from the appellate court on May 12, 2006 that ○○ was found guilty of a violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (the Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 20 million, and a maximum of KRW 00,000,000, and one year and six months in case of the Plaintiff’s maximum of KRW 200,564,000).

2) Facts on ○○ Furcs

A) Around November 200, 200, ○○ Furx was established and operated in order to engage in precious metal distribution business, etc., and it was closed ex officio after being accused of material suspicion from the head of ○○ Tax Office on September 30, 2002.

B) Until July 14, 2001, ○○ Furx received a tax invoice on the purchase of gold bullion from (ju) ○○○○○, (ju) ○○○○, and (ju) ○○○○○, etc. from the second period of 2002 thereafter, without any business performance, and all of the said three companies were accused of material suspicion without paying value-added tax as an enterprise with only sales without purchase.

C) ○○ Furx had earned fixed revenues of KRW 13 or KRW 14 per g at all times due to the purchase and sale of gold bullion regardless of its business partners, transaction dates, city taxes, etc. at the time of the business.

3) Facts as to ○○ Ra

A) Before October 30, 2001, 2001, no business performance had been achieved for more than two years, the company received a tax invoice for the purchase of gold bullion from (i) Jeju ○○, (ii) Jeju ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

(B) On December 6, 2007, 2007, 2007, 1013, 2007, 1213, and 1213 (combined) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against ○○○○○, the representative director of ○○○○○○, in collusion with the actual business owners of the ○○○○○○, the (ju), the (ju), the (ju), the (ju), the taxation-related company, and the large-scale wholesale company, and other active acts of taking part in the large-scale carbon business. The value-added tax on the pertinent taxable period (from October 30, 201 to December 29 of the same year) was 809,195,90, the amount of tax evaded by the ○○○○○’s ○○ 2005, Jan. 25, 2002, from around 24, 2008, 2008).

4) Facts as to ○○ Alley

A) After the commencement of the business on September 13, 2001, ○○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○. The above three companies received a tax invoice for the purchase of gold bullion from the second period of 202, and filed a complaint for the purchase of gold bullion on suspicion of material

B) On September 13, 2004, ○○○○○○ and its representative director, without supplying goods or services from the public prosecutor belonging to the District Public Prosecutor’s Office of ○○○○○○○ on September 13, 2004 to September 30, 2002, issued and delivered false tax invoices of an amount equivalent to KRW 27.77 billion in value to 14 companies, including the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff (in the case of the Plaintiff, an amount equivalent to KRW 497 million in total of the supply value during the second period in 2001), and received a disposition of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act on the grounds that the false tax invoice was purchased and issued from five companies, such as the date of ○○○○○○○○, and (ju) from the five companies including the date of ○○○○○○○○○, on the ground that there was no suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

C) On August 24, 2007, ○○○○, the representative director of ○○○○○○○○○○○○ was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 years and a fine of 2.5 billion won from November 9, 2001 to July 23, 2002 under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (taxes) due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (taxes) and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (taxes) and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. (Seoul High Court Decision 2007.).107.

5) The fact that the transaction between the Plaintiff and the ○○ Infant was conducted

A) The ○○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, and the Red○○, the representative director of ○○○○ at the time of around 2001, is between husband and wife.

B) The Plaintiff withdrawn 17.3 billion won and 00 billion won from his bank account in each business year of 2001, and some of them were deposited with no passbook in the gold bullion purchaser, and the remainder was treated as a half of the gold bullion. At the time close to the time when a part of the above half of the half of the gold bullion was withdrawn from the bank account of the Plaintiff or 00 china, the Plaintiff remitted the proceeds from supply to ○○○○ as follows.

first day; and

B between Sis

For internal purposes

January 20, 2001

10: 54

○○ Withdrawal of a half of the amount of gold 70,000,000 won

10: 55

Plaintiff’s transfer of 71,104,000 won to ○○○○○

10: 58

○○ Withdrawal of a half of the amount of gold 70,000,000 won

August 23, 2001

13: 27

Withdrawal of 53,000,000 won by the Plaintiff

13: 27

○○ (00,000 won) Nos. 73,000,000

13: 28

The Plaintiff’s transfer of 125,546,000 won to ○○○○

September 26, 2001

13: 16

○○ Withdrawal of a half of the amount of gold 40,000,000 won

13: 21

Withdrawal of 36,000,000 won by the Plaintiff

13: 24

The Plaintiff’s transfer of 136,840,000 won to ○○ia as proceeds from supply.

6) The transaction between the Plaintiff and the ○○ Fund

A) From April 15, 2003 to June 16, 2003, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice for the purchase of gold bullion amounting to KRW 21.8772 billion from the proceeds of supply. The daily balance sheet of ○○○ stated that the amount calculated by deducting the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 750 won per 3.75g (1 money) from the proceeds of supply on the said tax invoice received from the Plaintiff was returned to the Plaintiff over 33 occasions, as the aggregate amount of KRW 10.575 billion from the proceeds of supply on the said tax invoice.

B) In addition, ○○○ gold also stated that ○○ gold purchased gold bullion worth KRW 4.23 billion in total from the Plaintiff and paid the said consideration over 32 times from April 14, 2003 to June 30 of the same year. The Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice for the sales of the said gold bullion to the Plaintiff.

7) The transaction between the Plaintiff and ○○ Unemployment

On September 15, 2003, the Plaintiff received a tax invoice on the purchase of gold bullion 200,000,000 won of supply price from ○○ Unemployment. The Plaintiff, a transportation company, received each carriage request from (ju), ○○○○, (ju), ○○○, (ju), ○○ Trade, and (ju), ○○○ Unemployment, and (ju) ○○ Unemployment, and transported it directly to the Plaintiff without going through an intermediate phase from (ju) ○○ Unemployment.

8) The fact that transactions between the Plaintiff and ○○○○

On March 31, 2003, the daily calculation table of ○○ Gad stated that the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion equivalent to KRW 167.68 million from the Plaintiff and paid the said consideration for supply. However, the Plaintiff did not issue a tax invoice on the sales of the said gold bullion to ○ Gad.

9) Other facts

Since July 1, 2003, when the ‘tax-free gold scheme' was implemented in accordance with Article 106-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, some of the wholesalers of gold bullion in the paper have been used in the same form for the purpose of evading value-added tax and obtaining unfair profits from the National Treasury by abusing the above system, as follows: < Amended by Act No. 6937, Jun. 30, 2003>

(1) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ‘foreign enterprises ? ? importer ? ? ? ? 2 (Omissioned coaling companies ? floor wholesale companies ? ? export companies ? foreign enterprises’, and the transaction price is paid in sequence from the exporters to the importers in the reverse direction. However, from among the above distributors, at least a large amount of carbon to the floor wholesale companies are issued a tax invoice in the order of a specific person or a specific company, and in fact, there are most cases where gold bullion is not traded or transported at each stage.

(2) A heavy coal business entity (including a large portion of property and business ability, on the ground of its representative) purchases gold bullion distributed as tax-free gold in the previous stage, and sells it as tax-free gold, and then makes it impossible for the State to collect the value-added tax by withdrawing its profit in cash within the short period. The amount equivalent to the value-added tax paid by a heavy coal business entity to be paid by the company in the next stage is successively transferred to each exporter through the method of deducting the input tax amount by using the tax invoice received from the immediately preceding stage. Ultimately, the exporter’s export of the gold bullion and then the amount equivalent to the value-added tax payable by the excessive coal business entity is the ultimate source of profit from the excessive coal business. The above profit is either distributed in the form of margin in each stage of transactions to the domestic business entity participating in the heavy coal business, or distributed it separately to the foreign business entity in the form of the export price calculated by deducting the purchase price from the sales price, which is then allocated to the foreign business entity in the form of marization and its margin.

Each entry of evidence of subparagraphs 3 through 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, Eul 6, 10, 12 through 16, 24, 27 through 41 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) 원고의 변칙적 자금대출('카드짱') 협의에 대하여

First of all, the facts alleged by the plaintiff and its related persons are as mentioned above, but they were convicted of the "credit card tin's suspicion" at the first instance court, on the other hand, at the appellate court, they were acquitted of the same suspicion, and all gold bullion sold by the plaintiff was recovered at the time of collection, and profits equivalent to the difference was gained by paying the price in accordance with the discount rate at the time of collection, and all these were sold to the plaintiff in the middle without material. In light of the facts alleged by the defendant (personal and material relation between the plaintiff and the ○○○ party, the details of the representative director's financial transaction), and evidence Nos. 7 through 9 are stated only in the circumstances alleged by the defendant (the plaintiff's sales with the credit card 's whole sales with the credit card tin', and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the part on the charge of " card tin' among the dispositions in this case is unlawful.

2) As to the Plaintiff’s processing and purchase agreement

A) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. As such, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. In a case where a considerable degree of proof on this point has been proven to the extent that the defendant reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to prove that the tax invoice is not false and that it is easy to present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant's disposition, in view of the position that it is not easy for the defendant to present evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

In addition, in Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice is delivered to an entrepreneur who supplies or receives goods or services, such as a person who delivers or provides services due to contractual causes, etc.; and a person liable to pay value-added tax is a person who actually engages in a transaction of supplying goods or services to a person who actually supplies or receives services from an entrepreneur, not a person who establishes a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who provides or is supplied with the entrepreneur (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). Other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice cannot be deducted or refundable unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that he was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who received the goods or services was not negligent in not knowing the above fact in the name of the supplier (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jun. 27, 2002).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the above tax invoices received from ○○ Furx, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, and ○○○ Unemployment have been proved to the extent of falsity. As to this, the above tax invoices received from the Plaintiff were proved to the extent of falsity. The circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff (such as the transaction practices of the gold bullion wholesale business at the time, the transaction practices of the Plaintiff engaged in the actual transactions of gold bullion with the above companies, and the fact that the operator of the wide carbon business has not revealed whether the above companies were actually operated or not) and the testimony of ○○○○○○ was not false, nor were there any other evidence to acknowledge that the above tax invoices were not false or that the Plaintiff was not aware of the falsity. Thus, the part of the processing purchase in the disposition in this case cannot be said to be unlawful.

① The purchaser companies of ○○ Furx were all accused of material suspicions, and ○○ Furx itself was accused of material suspicions, and ○○ Furx was constantly fixed profits from the purchase and sale of gold bullion regardless of its business partners, transaction dates, and cities at the time of the business.

② Although ○○○○ Ra and ○○ Ra were not punished due to the suspicion that false tax invoices were issued, issued, or purchased, or received, the purchaser was almost identical to that of ○○ Furx, and each representative director was convicted of committing an act of evading the value-added tax amount of a company by participating in the ○○ Mara's operations as an operator of the Dominx, and each of the representative directors was convicted of the act of evading the value-added tax of the ○ Rad's representative director (which became final and conclusive as to

③ The Plaintiff transferred proceeds from supply under the said tax invoice to ○○○○○ at the time when part of ○○○○○’s disposal of the amount of the virtual loan was withdrawn from the bank account and at the time near the number of minutes, and the Plaintiff did not actively dispute the fact that the amount of the withdrawal was used for the above remittance, and the Plaintiff cited “money lending and borrowing between the Plaintiff and the ○○○○○○○” but did not submit any material supporting the existence of such lending and borrowing of money.

④ Under the daily table of ○○○○ Fund, the Plaintiff stated that ○○ Fund was returned KRW 10.5 billion, which is the remainder after deducting the amount calculated at the rate of 750 billion per 7.75 g (1 money) from the purchase price paid to ○○ Fund. In light of the method and rate of calculation, it appears that the amount is “fee for the issuance of tax invoices.” The Plaintiff appears to have received the refund of KRW 10.5 million as above. The Plaintiff recognized the fact that the remittance of the financial institution on the daily table was made for the purpose of creating financial evidentiary materials and received the return of the amount indicated on the daily table. However, the Plaintiff asserted that, if the cash transaction was made after the closing of the business hours of the financial institution, it was formally remitted the purchase price to create financial evidentiary materials and received the remainder after deducting value-added tax. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the cash transaction was inevitable after the closing of the business hours, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was no other evidence to believe that there was any other evidence.

⑤ The gold bullion purchased by the Plaintiff from ○○ Unemployment was formed within a very short time in light of the transaction concept, and was directly transported to the Plaintiff from ○○○ Unemployment, which was the first seller without going through the said intermediate stage. The Plaintiff appears to have been well aware of the trade of breadth at the time of the said purchase.

3) As to the Plaintiff’s suspicion of omitting sales (unmaterial sales)

The following circumstances revealed from the purport of the above facts and the whole pleadings, namely, ① the amount of ○○ and ○○ Epid stated the fact of sales of non-data to the Plaintiff’s above companies in each daily balance sheet, ② the above companies have continuously traded gold bullion with the Plaintiff at the time of the above entry, ③ if the Plaintiff did not sell to the above companies, the above companies did not have reasonable grounds to indicate that it purchased gold bullion from the Plaintiff in their daily balance sheet (the Plaintiff asserted that ○○○ was stated as “gold bullion purchased from the Plaintiff for convenience,” but it is difficult to recognize the above assertion itself, and there is no other reasonable grounds to recognize it, and there is no other assertion or evidence as to it).

④ As seen earlier, the Plaintiff recovered a significant portion of the gold bullion sold by credit card at the instant branch, and thus, should again dispose of it as non-data. In full view of the fact that there were frequent sales of non-data in the gold bullion wholesale industry at the time, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff sold gold bullion to ○○ and ○○○○○○ as non-data as alleged in the Defendant’s suspicion. Accordingly, it is insufficient to reverse the judgment below that the Plaintiff only transferred the purchase price to the Plaintiff, or that there was only the testimony of ○○○○○’s witness, as alleged by the Plaintiff (which did not have any financial data that the Plaintiff remitted the purchase price to the Plaintiff) or that there was no counter-proof. Therefore, the part based on the suspicion of omission in the sales cannot be deemed unlawful

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, among the dispositions of this case, the part on the ground of " card tin" is unlawful, and the remaining part is not erroneous as alleged by the plaintiff. Thus, among the dispositions of this case, the part on the ground of the imposition of value-added tax for the second period to the first period from 2000 to 2002 and the imposition disposition of corporate tax for each business year from 200 to 2002, which exceeds the legitimate tax amount to be imposed lawfully by each of them should be revoked.

As a result, the imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 200 among the above dispositions subject to cancellation is illegal, and the entire imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 1 to 2002 and each disposition of tax for the first period of 2000 to 2002 are illegal, and the part of the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 200 and each business year of 2002 should be revoked. However, the legitimate tax amount to be imposed cannot be calculated with the exception of the illegal part. Thus, each of the above dispositions should also be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified within the scope of this recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

○ Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 Tax Amount to be paid

(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 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

Article 22 Additional Tax (amended by Act No. 7876 of March 24, 2006)

(2) Where an entrepreneur falls under any of the following subparagraphs, an amount equivalent to 1/100 of the value of supply shall be added to the payable tax amount or deducted from the refundable tax amount:

1. If the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) is not delivered, or the requisite entries of the tax invoice on the delivered portion are not wholly or partly entered, or are different from the fact;

○ Corporate Tax Act

Article 15 Scope of Gross Income

(1) The gross income shall be the amount of earnings generated by transactions which increase the net assets of the concerned corporation, except for capital input or financing and what is provided in this Act.

Article 19 (Scope of Deductible Expenses)

(1) Deductible expenses shall be the amount of losses incurred by transactions which reduce the net assets of a corporation, excluding return of capital or financing, disposition of surplus funds, and what is provided for in this Act.

(2) The losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be losses or expenses generated in connection with the business of a corporation which are generally accepted as normal or directly related to profit, except as otherwise prescribed by this Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes.