Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap8007 (Law No. 23, 2009)

Whether the transaction constitutes a false tax invoice concerning gold bullion

However, it is confirmed that the actual gold bullion is delivered on the date of purchase and the total amount of the supply price and the input tax are paid after receiving the actual gold bullion on the date of purchase.

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

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

· The purport of the Yellow Dust

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 58,614,240 for the first term portion of 2003 against the Plaintiff on September 14, 2007, and each imposition of KRW 10,003,141,420 for the second term portion of 2003, and KRW 1,731,517,90 for the year 203 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the defendant in the trial. Thus, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that the value-added tax amount constitutes a false tax invoice, as it was stated falsely.

In the instant gold bullion transaction, the Defendant asserts that all the exporters, such as the Plaintiff, and the company did not intend to pay the value-added tax from the beginning when trading gold bullion, and that there was no intent to collect the value-added tax from the counter-party to the transaction. Therefore, even if the tax invoice stated in the value-added tax was issued, it should not be deducted as the input tax amount.

However, as recognized earlier, the Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion from each of the instant purchasing places, received the actual gold bullion on the date of purchase, and paid the total amount of the value of supply and the total amount of the input tax, and received each of the instant tax invoices in which the input tax amount was entered from each of the instant purchasing places, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the input tax amount of the instant tax invoice is false. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of the principle of good faith

The Defendant asserts that the input tax deduction for the instant tax invoice should not be allowed in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith, as the instant gold bullion transactions abuse the zero tax rate system, thereby deceiving the national treasury and impairing the foundation of the value-added tax system.

In addition, in order to apply the principle of good faith to taxpayers, there is a behavior of a taxpayer objectively contradictory to the taxpayer, the behavior was caused by a taxpayer’s severe act of worship, and the trust of the tax authority resulting therefrom is worth being protected (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14865, Apr. 23, 2009). The reasons asserted by the defendant alone cannot be deemed to have satisfied the same requirements in this case. Thus, the defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. Judgment on the assertion that the abuse of rights constitutes abuse of rights

The defendant asserts that the gold bullion transaction in this case is related to fraudulent tax evasion, and the plaintiff knew or could have known the fact that he participated in such transaction, so the plaintiff should be deemed to have participated in the above fraudulent transaction. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of input tax deduction in order to realize the improper profit of the gold bullion alteration transaction shall not be allowed as an abuse of rights, and the defendant has the right to refuse it.

On the other hand, the above circumstances alleged by the defendant do not admit the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's input tax deduction satisfies the legal requirements of the input tax deduction under the Value-Added Tax Act is abuse of rights.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.