쟁점 구매확인서가 허위수출계약서에 근거하여 발급된 것인지를 알면서 지금을 공급한 것인지 여부[국패]
Whether the main purchase certificate is currently supplied with knowledge of whether it was issued based on a false export contract.
It is difficult to recognize that the tax authority has supplied the present time with the knowledge of whether the issue purchase certificate was issued on the basis of the evidence proved by the tax authority.
Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 221,458,510 against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2004 shall be revoked.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the column of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420
(a)for the second 20th 20 m (a) "(a)", and for the fourth 15 m (c) "decisions", respectively, to "a correction of facts of recognition";
(b) '2-d. judgment' (from 5th to 6th eth eth eth 8th eth eth eth eth eth) changes
In light of the above circumstances, the issue of whether the Plaintiff supplied the goods to Nonparty 1 cannot affect the application of zero-rate tax rate to the Plaintiff, and even if the purchase certificate of this case was issued based on a false export contract, it cannot be deemed that the purchase certificate of this case issued by the head of foreign exchange bank cannot be deemed as null and void a year, barring special circumstances such as the Plaintiff being aware of the defect in the issuance of the purchase certificate of this case, it cannot be immediately excluded from the application of zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1375, Jan. 26, 2006). In this case, there is no special circumstance that the Plaintiff knew of the defect in the issuance procedure of this case from 200 to 200, the Plaintiff’s offering of the goods based on the above purchase certificate of this case to Nonparty 1’s non-party 2, who was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had received the above purchase certificate of this case from the Plaintiff.
2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[Supreme Court Decision 2007Du13715 (No. 11, 2008)]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence. The issue of whether the plaintiff's supply to the AA comprehensive commercial company (hereinafter "A comprehensive commercial company") actually exported can not affect the application of zero-rate tax rate to the transaction of this case, and even if the purchase certificate presented by the AA comprehensive commercial company was issued based on a false export contract, it cannot be deemed invalid as a matter of course. Thus, barring special circumstances such as the plaintiff's knowledge of the defect in the process of issuing a purchase certificate, the supply of goods based on the above purchase certificate can not be immediately excluded from the subject of zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act. In this case, the court below determined that the defendant's burden of proof as to the existence of taxation requirements and the legality of imposing tax disposition should be proved, and it is not clear that the AA comprehensive commercial company currently requested the purchase of the plaintiff, without its own funds, and it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff immediately paid the purchase certificate to the AA comprehensive commercial company at the time of the issuance of the purchase certificate.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.