Seoul High Court 2009Nu8085 (Law No. 21, 2009)

Supreme Court Decision 2008Du12665 ( October 26, 2009)

It cannot be viewed as a nominal transaction solely on the ground that there is a bomb in the transaction process.

It is difficult to conclude that a series of transactions until gold bullion is imported and exported is conducted on a day or on a short period of time, and there is a so-called "bomb" in the middle stage of such transactions that it is not a supply of goods subject to value-added tax, solely on the sole basis of the fact that there is a so-called "bomb" company.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠은은지 3000 쇠은은은은 3000 개은은은은 3000 아은은은은은 3000 아은은은은 3000 아은은은 3000 이 이 3000 개이 300209 head 15869 value-added tax

흰지지300 쇠지지지 3000 쇠지지지지지지지鹬 AAAlley

쇠지지300 쇠지지지지 3000 지지지지 3000 지지지지지지 3000B Head of tax office

physical n300 u300 n u3000 n u3000 Supreme Court Decision 2008Du12665 Decided February 26, 2009

Article 300 u u3000 u300 n u3000 n u3000 Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu85 decided August 21, 2009

쇠은은 이 개은은은 3000 개은은은 3000 개은은은은은 3000 이 이 이 3000 개은이 13, 1300

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Where an entrepreneur, who is liable to pay value-added tax, delivers or transfers goods due to contractual or legal grounds, it becomes subject to value-added tax, barring any special provision stipulating that the value-added tax shall be exempted or imposed. Therefore, if an entrepreneur independently supplies goods for business purposes, taxation requirements are satisfied. Meanwhile, even if an entrepreneur, who is supplied goods by such an entrepreneur, expects the entrepreneur to deduct the relevant input tax amount from his/her total output tax amount, and enters the transaction amount in the tax invoice separately from the value of supply and the value-added tax, if the entrepreneur entered the relevant transaction amount in the tax invoice separately from the value of supply and the value-added tax in the tax invoice, then the transaction should be deemed as having been collected separately from the value of supply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da62821, Feb. 22, 200; 2004Da6065, May 27, 2005).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff purchased gold bullion amounting to 7,978,09,800 won (hereinafter referred to as "gold bullion") from 6 business entities, includingCC Co., Ltd. from April 13, 2004 to September 20, 204, respectively, and received the price in full (hereinafter referred to as "the transaction of this case"), and delivered 15 copies of the tax invoice under this case (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice of this case") from the supplier of this case in violation of the rules of evidence, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the whole transaction within a short period of time until the export of gold bullion, and since the plaintiff purchased gold bullion at the interim stage and delivered them to the purchaser of this case without recommendation, the court below determined that there was no amount equivalent to 1,000 won of value-added tax as the purchase price of this case's gold bullion in violation of the legal principles as well as 1,000,000.

3. 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 on the bench.