Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap73913 ( December 28, 2010)

The claim for the return of the amount of unpaid refund related to the illegal gold bullion transactions is against the principle of good faith.

An exporter who has participated intentionally or by gross negligence in an illegal transaction of gold bullion, and the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust profit equivalent to the amount of the unpaid refund is not permitted in violation of the principle of good faith, so it cannot be viewed as a violation of the binding force of the final judgment or res judicata

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 21 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Na12707 National Tax Refund, etc.

AAA Company et al.

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap73913 Decided December 28, 2010

December 16, 2011

February 3, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant (1) 0.01% per day from February 25, 2005 to April 30, 2006, 0.15% per day from the next day to October 14, 2007, 0.137% per day from the next day to April 30, 209, 0.093% from the next day to December 4, 2009, 5% per annum from the next day to August 5, 2010, 200% per annum from the next day to August 5, 2010, 200% per annum from the next day to 30.4% per annum from August 5, 2010, 200 to the day of full payment, 20% per annum from the next day to 30.5% per annum from the next day to 30.5% per day to 30% per annum from the next day to 30.5% per day, 2015.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The contents to be explained in this part are as follows: (The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

2. Determination on the claim

A. Whether the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the accrued refund amount is established

The return of the value-added tax in the return of the tax amount under Article 1(B-1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is determined by the return. However, in the case where the tax authority revised the return of the tax amount under Article 1(2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act to increase the tax amount due to omission or error in the tax base return or the tax amount to be paid or the tax amount to be refunded, the confirmation of the tax amount arising from the initial return cannot be maintained. Therefore, in order for the taxpayer to be paid the tax amount as originally reported, the taxpayer should file a lawsuit seeking revocation of the return of the tax amount to be refunded, and the tax amount, the existence and scope of which are fixed, can be claimed by the taxpayer as a civil lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du7520, Oct. 26, 201). 208.

B. Whether the plaintiffs' claim for return of key tax amount violates the principle of good faith or constitutes illegal consideration

(1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

“In the course of a series of transactions, the Plaintiff’s malicious business operator engaged in illegal transactions for the purpose of evading the output tax amount in the course of the transaction as an exporter, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s active participation in such illegal transactions, or the remainder of the transaction that did not know of such circumstances by gross negligence, claiming the deduction of the input tax amount, claiming the deduction of the input tax amount, while knowing that there was a malicious business operator engaged in illegal transactions for the purpose of evading the output tax amount in the course of the transaction, cannot be deemed as taking unfair benefits without any legal grounds that the Defendant’s refusal to deduct or refund the input tax amount, is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith as stipulated in Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of the input tax amount constitutes an act contrary to the principle of trust and good faith under the Civil Act or a claim for return of profits from illegal consideration.”

(2) recognised facts

(A) A general form of an irregular gold bullion transaction for the purpose of tax evasion;

From around 202 to December 31, 2004, between precious metal companies located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government prior to the amendment of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, it imports gold bullion through the zero-rate tax or tax exemption system by abusing the zero-rate tax or the zero-rate tax exemption system, and then distributes it to the taxable amount through various stages of zero-rate tax or tax exemption (the so-called "so-called "large-scale Carbon Company" (the representative of a person who has no property and business ability) and then distributes it to the taxable amount through various stages of wholesalers. While exporting it, the exporter did not pay the value-added tax, and the exporter did not pay the value-added tax, and the exporter did not pay the value-added tax, by receiving the refund of the value-added tax that has not been paid by the heavy coal company, and only the business method of making the refund amount of the value-added tax as

(B) Transaction of Plaintiff AA’s gold bullion

1) 원고 AAA 대표이사 박EE은 서울 종로구 OO동에서 'DD당'이라는 상호로 보석류, 반지 등의 소매상을 운영하다가, 2003. 11. 20. 3억 원을 출자해 원고 AAA 을 설립했는데, 박EE은 원고 AAA에 대한 국세청의 범칙조사에서 출자금의 출처를 제대로 밝히지도 못했고, 금지금 매입・매출시 거래물량, 단가, 거래대금 지급 등 거래 약정은 과장 오FF이 결정했다고 진술했다. 원고 AAA 과장 오FF은 GG금은 주식회사(이하 'GG금은')의 주거래 수출업체 QQ금은에서 근무했던 사람으로서 위 조사에서 금지금을 수출하면서 전문 운송기관에 의뢰하지 않았고 직원 천HH와 함께 직접 홍콩 수출처로 현물을 들고 가는 방식으로 반출했다고 진술했다. 그런데 원고 AAA은 수출하는 금지금에 관해 운송 중의 도난, 분실 등을 대비한 보험에 가입한 바는 없었다.

2) After its establishment, Plaintiff AA immediately started to engage in gold bullion export business after being supplied with gold bullion from the GG. From December 2, 2003 to October 5, 2004, Plaintiff AA received from the gold bullion wholesalers, such as GG, a total of the supply value for gold bullion amounting to KRW 38,212,803,050 from the purchase tax invoice amounting to KRW 91.

3) From April 3, 2001 to May 10, 2004, GG funds, the major purchasing parties of Plaintiff AA, were subject to criminal punishment for committing a crime that "from April 3, 2001 to May 10, 2004, the actual operators of the 45 wide coal companies, such as JJJa, purchased gold bullion as taxation from the above large coal companies, and then remitted the transaction amount (including value-added tax) to the large coal companies through taxation-related companies, and the operator of the above 45 large coal companies was subject to criminal punishment for "the said 45 large coal companies evaded value-added tax amounting to approximately KRW 74 billion by means of almost no remaining assets of the company's name."

4) 원고 AAA은 박II등이 위 범죄행위를 위해 폭탄업체로 이용한 주식회사 KKKKKKKK, 주식회사 LL금은, 주식회사 MM물산, 주식회사 NN무역, 주식회사 PPPPP, 주식회사 QQQ, 주식회사 RR주얼리, 주식회사 SS금은, 주식회사 TTTTTT 등을 거쳐 금지금을 매입했고 위 업체들은 원고 AAA의 금지금 거래에서도 폭탄업체의 역할을 수행했다.

5) The transaction of Plaintiff AA’s gold bullion was conducted after both import declaration and then re-exported it into the 2-3-level tax-free gold sheet after converting it into the taxable gold, and then, again, through the 2-3-level wholesale company, the exporter was finally supplied to the Plaintiff, who is the exporter, and then supplied it to Hong Kong. The entire distribution process was completed within 2-3 days from a day to a day. Plaintiff AA purchased gold bullion at a price considerably lower than the domestic market price from the purchaser, and Plaintiff AA exported the gold bullion to Hong Kong, and the reported price was lower than the international market price, and the domestic wholesale price was lower than the international market price (as of December 2, 2003, the export price was lower than the domestic wholesale price at 0.87 US$, which was lower than the domestic wholesale price at 0.09 US dollars than the international market price at 0.09 US dollars at 200 for each gram, which is a considerable difference in the precious metal price).

6) Plaintiff AA did not secure any security for the payment of the export transaction place after or after the date of export, even though the export price was received, and the export price was deposited in the account of Plaintiff AA, the export price was paid to the purchaser at the source of the purchase. Some of the exports were concluded only after the purchase price was taken out.

7) Meanwhile, gold bullion importers shall pay customs duties equivalent to 3% of the price of gold bullion at the time of the import of gold bullion, and they shall be transferred to a purchaser after being included in the transaction price of gold bullion in the distribution stage of gold bullion, and gold bullion exporters shall be entitled to refund customs duties of 3% paid to the purchaser. However, gold bullion exporters shall obtain from the purchaser and trader the certificate of division of "the certificate of division" under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter "Special Cases Act"). Such 3% of customs duties are reasonable considering the difference of the precious metal prices, the parties, including the Plaintiff, did not receive all the certificate of division necessary for the refund of customs duties, and the Plaintiff, the exporter, at the time of applying for the refund of customs duties, did not follow the procedures necessary for the refund of customs duties (the whole process of entry is revealed after being entered in the pre-delivery network of the Korea Customs Service before the Korea Customs Service when applying for

(A) The gold bullion transaction by the Plaintiff BBBB

1) 원고 BBBBBBB의 대표이사인 박QQ(이 사건 소송 중 대표자가 '이UU'로 변경됐다)은 주식회사 VV케미칼에서 근무하다가 퇴직한 후 2001. 5. 1. 'WWWWW' 라는 귀금속 소매업체를 개업해 인터넷 전자상거래 방식으로 사업을 하다가 2003. 12. 31. 폐업했고, 그 무렵인 2003. 12. 16. 원고 BBBBBBB를 설립했다.

2) 원고 BBBBBBB는 설립 당시부터 2004. 12. 31.까지 금지금 도매업체로부터 공급가액 34,239,202,000원 상당의 금지금 매입에 관한 세금계산서들을 교부받았고 설립 당시부터 2004. 9. 30.까지 총 42회에 걸쳐 홍콩 소재 외국회사인 XXXX에게 수출 가액 합계 31,644,761,000원 상당의 금지금을 수출했다.

3) Both the gold bullion traded by Plaintiff BBBB were imported from a foreign country and distributed as tax-free gold, which was converted from the importing company to Plaintiff YYYYYYY. All stages of transactions were conducted within 2,3 days from the import date of the relevant gold bullion, and Plaintiff BBBBB exported all gold bullion on the date of purchase. A large number of gold bullions were completed within one hour from Plaintiff BBBBBB to the importing company in the reverse order, followed the import procedure in Incheon Airport bonded warehouse, and subsequently carried out the import procedure in Incheon Airport.

4) The export price of Plaintiff BBB’s gold bullion was lower than the import price, and was considerably lower than the domestic market price and the international market price.

5) 한편, 이 사건 금지금을 그 유통 중에 면세금에서 과세금으로 전환한 도매업체들은 모두 자신들이 매입한 금지금을 매입가액보다 낮은 공급가액(다만 여기에 부가가치세액을 더한 액수는 매입가액보다 높다)에 매출한 후 폐업해 부가가치세 납부의무를 이행하지 않았다. 원고 BBBBBBB 및 대표이사 박QQ은 검찰로부터 조세범처벌법 위반죄로 기소유예처분을 받았고, 원고 BBBBBBB의 주요 매입거래처가 GG금은이 있다(이를 운영하던 박II은 앞서 본 바와 같이 형사처벌을 받았다).

6) Plaintiff BBB’s export source was always limited to a company Asian AB, and the Plaintiff BBB did not present any data in the second revocation lawsuit on the size of the export source, transaction performance, credit rating, etc. of the above large amount of gold bullion traded for a long time.

7) Upon the commencement of an investigation related to gold bullion transactions by the National Tax Service, the Plaintiff BBBB had immediately discontinued the export of gold bullion, and thereafter there was no possibility of exporting gold bullion to any of the companies.

8) Plaintiff BBB did not file an application for refund of customs duties under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Customs Duties (as the import price was imposed by 3%, the total amount is approximately KRW 961 million) paid at the time of the import of the gold bullion at the time of the export of the instant gold bullion.

(D) The plaintiffs' profit generating method

The plaintiffs purchased gold bullion, etc. as a taxation for the export goods, and exported gold bullion, etc. at a lower price than the purchase price and higher price than the purchase price after deducting the input tax amount from the purchase price. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are included in the structure that can finally obtain profits by receiving a refund from the tax authorities.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4

b) the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Determination

In a series of continuous transactions, a malicious business operator in one phase attempt to create profits only by the method of evading the value-added tax from the beginning and only by the method of evading the value-added tax.

그가 징수한 부가가치세를 납부하지 않는 경우에 그 후에 이어지는 거래단계에 수출업자와 같이 영세율 적용으로 매출세액의 부담 없이 매입세액을 공제 ・ 환급받을 수 있는 사업자가 있다면 국가는 부득이 다른 조세수입을 재원으로 삼아 그 환급 등을 실시할 수밖에 없다. 이는 소극적인 조세수입의 공백을 넘어 적극적인 국고의 유출에 해당되는 것으로서 부가가치세 제도 자체의 훼손을 넘어 그 부담이 일반 국민에게 전가됨으로써 전반적인 조세체계에까지 심각한 폐해가 미치게 된다. 그러나 위와 같은 사유가 있다고 하더라도 부정거래의 존재를 전혀 알 수 없는 상황에서 거래한 수출업자라면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 부가가치세법이 정하는 바에 따라 매입세액을 공제 • 환급받을 수 있지만, 수출업자가 그 이전 단계에 부정거래가 있었음을 알면서도 이를 이용하여 자신의 이익을 꾀하기 위해서 거래에 나섰고, 그 거래이익도 결국 앞의 부정거래에 따른 것이며, 나아가 그의 거래 참여가 부정거래의 판로를 확보해 줌으로써 궁극적으로 부정거래를 가능하게 한 결정적인 요인이 됐다면, 이는 그 전제가 되는 매입세액 공제 ・ 환급제도를 악용해 부당한 이득을 추구하는 행위에 해당한다. 그러므로 이러한 수출 업자에 대하여도 다른 조세수입을 재원으로 삼아 매입세액을 공제 • 환급해 주는 것은 부정거래로부터 연유하는 이익을 국고에 의해 보장하는 결과가 돼 조세체계에 미치는 심각한 폐해를 막을 수 없다. 이러한 경우에 수출업자가 매입세액의 공제 • 환급을 구 하는 것은 보편적인 정의관과 윤리관에 비추어 도저히 용납될 수 없으므로 이는 구 국 세기본법 제15조에 정해진 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 것으로서 허용될 수 없다고 보아야 한다. 이는 공평의 관점과 결과의 중대성 및 보편적 정의감에 비춰 수출업자가 중 대한 과실로 인해 그와 같은 부정거래가 있었음을 알지 못한 경우, 즉 악의적 사업자와의 관계로 보아 수출업자가 조금만 주의를 기울였다면 이를 충분히 알 수 있었음에도 거의 고의에 가까운 정도로 주의의무를 현저히 위반해 이를 알지 못한 경우에도 마찬가지이며, 그 수출업자와 부정거래를 한 악의적 사업자와 사이에 구체적인 공모 또는 공범관계가 있은 경우로 한정할 것은 아니다(대법원 2011. 1. 20. 선고 2009두13474 전원합의체 판결 참조). 기초 사실 및 앞서 인정한 사실을 위 법리에 비춰 보면, 원고들이 매매차익을 누리면서 금지금을 단기간 내에 매입 ・ 수출할 수 있었던 것은 중간 단계의 악의적 사업자 가 금지금을 저가로 공급하면서 매출세액을 포탈하는 부정거래를 하였기 때문이고, 그 거래의 구조에 비추어 원고들이 거액의 금지금을 수출함으로써 그 판로를 확보해 주지 않고서는 악의적 사업자가 부정거래를 하는 것이 불가능할 것이므로 결국 원고들과 악 의적 사업자는 필연적인 상호 의존관계에 있었다고 할 수 있다. 또 종국적으로 원고들 이 매입세액을 공제 • 환급받을 수 없다면 그 세액의 부담이 매매차익을 초과해 손해를 보게 되고 그로 인해 거래가 불가능하게 되므로 이러한 상호 의존관계는 반드시 원고 들이 수출에 대한 영세율 적용으로 국가로부터 매입세액을 공제 • 환급받는 것을 전제 로 한다. 그런데 원고들의 금지금 거래는 금지금의 수입으로부터 수출에 이르기까지 전체 거래 과정에 있어서 거래기간, 거래상대방, 거래가격결정, 결제방식, 관세환급누락 등의 거래행태가 비정상적이고, 그 가운데 면세금을 과세금으로 전환하면서 거래 징수 한 부가가치세를 납부하지 않고 폐업하는 소위 폭탄업체가 개입돼 있었으며, 원고들은 매입대금과 수출대금의 차액에 해당하는 자금만 투입하고 계약서 등의 서류작업과 대 금 송금 등의 비교적 간단한 업무만 하면서도 약 1년간의 기간 내에 각 300여억 원 규모의 금지금 등의 수출거래에 따른 환급세액을 통해 상당한 이익을 얻게 됐으므로 동종 업계에서 폭탄영업이 성행했던 점 등을 더해 보면 원고들로서는 적어도 조금만 주의를 기울였다면 정상적인 거래가 아님을 충분히 인식할 수 있었을 것으로 추인할 수 있다. 그러므로 수출업자인 원고들로서는 금지금 거래를 함에 있어 그전에 이루어 진 일련의 거래과정에 매출세액의 포탈을 목적으로 부정거래를 하는 악의적 사업자가 있고 그 때문에 원고들에 대한 매입세액 공제 • 환급이 다른 조세수입의 감소를 초래한 다는 사정을 알고 있었거나, 그렇지 않다고 하더라도 적어도 이를 알지 못하였음에 중 대한 과실이 있었다고 봄이 상당하다. 그런데 원고들이 매입세액의 공제 ・ 환급을 전제 로 해 원고들에게 부과된 각 차감고지세 부과처분의 취소를 구한다면 악의적 사업자의 부정거래에 편승한 원고들이 매입세액 공제 ・ 환급제도를 악용해 악의적인 사업자가 포탈한 매출세액의 일부를 이익으로 분배받고자 하는 것이며, 이는 전단계세액공제 제도를 취하고 있는 부가가치세 제도 및 전반적 조세 정의의 근간을 훼손하는 것이므로 구 국세기본법 제15조가 규정하는 신의성실의 원칙에 명백히 반한다. 그럼에도 불구하고 원고들이 이 사건 제1, 2차감고지세 부과처분에 대한 이 사건 제1, 2취소소송에서 원고들 승소 판결이 확정됐음(앞서 본 전원합의체판결이 나기 전에 확정됐다)을 이용해 매입세액의 공제를 전제로 한 쟁점세액 상당의 부당이득의 반환을 구하는 것은 조세포탈 범행을 통한 범죄수익을 실현하기 위한 것으로서 정의에 반하고 사회생활상 도저히 용인될 수 없어 민법상 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 권리행사로서 허용될 수 없거나, 그와 같은 매입세액의 납부는 결국 불법원인에 의한 급부로서 그 반환을 청구할 수 없다. 따라서 피고의 위 주장은 이유 있다.

C. The defendant's arguments are contrary to the defendant's res judicata or binding force of a final and conclusive judgment in the revocation lawsuit.

whether or not it is

(1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

“The Defendant’s assertion of the violation of the principle of trust and good faith against the Defendant regarding the instant claim seeking a return of unjust enrichment in accordance with the final judgment of the instant lawsuit Nos. 1 and 2 is merely a ground for dispute as to the instant lawsuit Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the Defendant has a duty to promptly refund the key tax amount which the Defendant had refused to refund by the binding force of the final judgment of the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant cannot assert that the said disposition is still valid in the instant lawsuit by res judicata of the final judgment of the said lawsuit, and the court may not make a decision different from the final judgment of the said court.”

(2) Determination

The binding force of a final and conclusive judgment to revoke a disposition, etc. in a lawsuit for revocation recognized under Article 30(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act is mainly recognized to ensure the effectiveness of the judgment, and it is recognized only for the judgment on the grounds of illegality, such as the main text of the judgment or the disposition that is the premise thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du5238, Mar. 23, 2001). The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment to revoke a disposition of taxation also extends only to the grounds for illegality arising out of the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Du4408, May 31, 2002; 200Du6237, Jul. 23, 2002). According to the aforementioned facts and the above facts, since the purport of the final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit for revocation is recognized to ensure the effectiveness of the judgment, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the aforementioned disposition of this case does not constitute a violation of the principle of res judicata effect, regardless of the Plaintiffs’s participation in the final and conclusive judgment.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds, and since the judgment of the first instance is unfair, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the first instance is revoked and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition