Whether the purchase tax invoice of gold bullion constitutes a false tax invoice

Since it is merely a nominal transaction form, it is reasonable to view it as a tax invoice different from the fact. Therefore, the disposition of imposition is lawful.

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. On October 4, 2005, the defendant revoked both the imposition of the corporate tax of 420,948,00 won for the business year of 204 with respect to the plaintiff ○○○○○○ (hereinafter "the plaintiff corporation") on the part of October 4, 2005, the first-term value-added tax of 1,768,785,730 won for the first-term business year of 2004, and the second-term value-added tax of 2004 for the second-term business year of value-added tax of 364,43,960 won for each and 653,112,45 won for refund, and the second-term business year of 204 for the second-term business year of value-added tax of 204 and the correction of the refund refusal of 653,112,45 won for each on the part of the plaintiff corporation's second taxpayer and so on each of 2004.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) inserting the part “(9) following the 6th judgment of the court of first instance,” and “not more than 14th judgment,” and “not more than 14th judgment,” the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows; (b) under Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the same shall be cited.

"(9) Among previous gold bullion distributors, when exporting the imported gold bullion through multiple stages of circulation, the so-called wide carbon company was put in the middle of the distribution stage, and when the company sells gold bullion distributed as tax-free gold bullion to the whole stage of the company, the company added the value-added tax amount of 10% to the amount of the value-added tax. After withdrawing the profit in cash within the short period of time and closing the business without paying the value-added tax, distributors after the company received the tax invoice in each stage to make it impossible for the country to collect the value-added tax, and the final exporter after the company received the tax invoice from the country to export gold bullion as zero-rate and receive the value-added tax from the country, and eventually, the country was ultimately making the exporter and importer of gold bullion to receive the value-added tax from the country to refund the gold bullion, and there was no difference in the sales performance of gold bullion after the company applied for the tax payment since the date of entry into force of April 1, 2005.

D. Determination

The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must prove the falsity of the tax invoice on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. If the defendant reasonably proves that the tax invoice is false, then the defendant must prove that the plaintiff who is the taxpayer is not liable for the illegality of the defendant's disposition should prove that the tax invoice is not false and not subject to the application of the rule of experience, and must prove that the above facts are not subject to the application of the rule of experience.

The following circumstances revealed in this case, i.e., the current transaction of gold bullion is a typical form of the transaction of gold bullion for the purpose of evading tax, and if the gold bullion transaction of this case is a normal transaction, it cannot occur due to the regular involvement of all stages of transaction within a short time, the regular involvement of the wholesale company, the lack of customs refunds, the export price of gold bullion which is less than the domestic market price. (ii) The Plaintiff’s ○○ does not interfere with all gold bullion transactions before the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s ○○ was established as capital and did not have sufficient financial resources to receive 50,000 won from the purchaser, and the Plaintiff’s ○○○ corporation did not receive any security from the purchaser, and thus, the Plaintiff corporation did not directly pay the purchase price of gold bullion in the form of the Plaintiff’s purchase price, and it did not appear that it was difficult for each of the Plaintiff corporation to receive the purchase price of gold bullion in the form of a false purchase or sale of gold bullion after the purchase price of the gold bullion.

2. The judgment of the first instance is just, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.