Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap36340 ( May 21, 2009)

Seocho 207west 2816 (Law No. 18, 2008)

Whether it is merely a nominal transaction with no actual transaction related to gold bullion

The mere fact that a series of transactions from the import to the export of gold bullion are conducted only on a daily basis, and there is a company that does not pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax when purchasing tax-free gold bullion and supplying it as gold bullion, etc., it cannot be deemed that it is a nominal transaction for the purpose of disguised the substantial transaction of gold bullion business.

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.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 202 against the Plaintiff on April 5, 2007, the imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 2002, KRW 1,174,68,430 for the first term of 203, the value-added tax for the second term of 203, KRW 216,246,00 for the second term of 203, value-added tax for the first term of 2004, KRW 181,352,160 for the first term of 204, and KRW 25,680,00 for the corporate tax for the business year of 204 is 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 court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this Court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Modification of the two pages 7 " December 31, 2002" as " December 26, 2002", and " June 9, 2003" as " June 27, 2003", respectively;

B. On January 22, 2003, the 7th 9th 10th 7th 9 and 10th 10th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 2002 “the second 2nd 2002 white-rate transaction” on the white-rate exemption (hereinafter “instant zero-rate transaction”) is modified as “the instant zero-rate transaction”

(c) Deletion of “the aggregate of 4,594,615,688 won” of 7 pages 13.

(d) 9.4 on face 4 "for companies outside Korea" add "including any part of transactions for which certain descriptions are omitted as above":

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.