Whether it is a transaction of zero tax rate with knowledge of the defect in a purchase approval, etc.

In light of the fact that it is a purchase confirmation issued on the basis of a false export contract, etc., it is presumed that it had been well aware of the fact that it will not be exported from abroad but be distributed in the Republic of Korea. Therefore, taxation is legitimate.

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of KRW 1,155,361,370 for value-added tax of KRW 751,375,740 for 201 and value-added tax of KRW 1,155,361,370 for 2001 against the Plaintiff on June 29, 2002.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From Apr. 1, 1997, the Plaintiff engaged in wholesale business, such as electrical and electronic parts, current accounts, and accounts for “○○ Unemployment,” on the third floor of ○○○○ Building ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” and the Plaintiff’s transaction from February 13, 2001 to December 28, 2001, 48 times in 15,730,60,860 won in total, and each of the above transaction partners (hereinafter “△△△△△△”) did not submit a written confirmation of purchase of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “written confirmation of purchase”) on the grounds that the transaction was not subject to the purchase approval (hereinafter referred to as “purchase approval”) or the purchase approval (hereinafter referred to as “purchase approval”).

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax return with the Defendant on the sales revenue amounting to KRW 15,730,660,860,000 for zero-rate sales.

C. However, the Defendant denied the application of zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act to the instant transaction on the grounds that all the purchase confirmation or purchase approval letter presented to the Plaintiff, which is the counterpart to the instant transaction, was issued on the basis of a false export contract in the name of △△ju, etc., and that the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances. On June 29, 2002, the Defendant imposed and notified each of the instant dispositions (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1-1, 2, and Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The purchase certificates, etc. of this case were issued lawfully by the head of a foreign exchange bank, and so long as the purchase certificates, etc. are issued lawfully, the requirements for applying zero tax rate are met only by itself, and whether there are any defects in the supporting documents, such as the purchase certificates, or whether they have been actually exported at present do not relate to the requirements for applying zero tax rate. Thus, each of the dispositions of this case is unlawful since the purchase certificates, etc. of this case cannot be deemed legitimate and the transaction of this case, which

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) As a requirement for the supply of goods through a purchase confirmation after September 1, 2001 to qualify for zero-rate tax rate, ① the issuing entity of the purchase confirmation shall be the head of the foreign exchange bank, ② the time of issuance shall be within twenty days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply of the goods belongs. ③ The method of application shall be in accordance with the application for confirmation of purchase (supply) of raw materials for foreign exchange earnings (goods, etc.) in Form No. 4-2 of the former Regulations on Foreign Trade (amended by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 2003-15, Feb. 6, 2003).

(1) Of the certificates of purchase regarding the instant transaction, a written confirmation of purchase issued to XX (Evidence 6-9, 13, 14, and 18 of Evidence 6), a written confirmation of purchase issued to ○○○ Investment (Evidence 22-30 of Evidence 6), a written confirmation of purchase and a written confirmation of purchase (Evidence 6-48 of Evidence 6) issued to △△△ Trade, issued to the head of the foreign exchange bank, do not meet the requirements for the preparing subject of the purchase authorization. (2) A written confirmation of purchase may be issued until August 31, 201, and only a written confirmation of purchase may be issued. (2) A written confirmation of partial approval of purchase issued to ○○○ Investment (Evidence 6-30 of evidence 6-30 of evidence 6), a written confirmation of purchase approval issued to △△ Investment (Evidence 31,32 of evidence 6-1), a written confirmation of purchase management rules may not be deemed legitimate from September 1, 201 to a written confirmation of purchase.

Therefore, the current supply of these purchase certificates and purchase approvals does not constitute zero tax rate.

(B) The Plaintiff, in collusion with △△△ice, was issued based on the export contract documents in collusion with the instant transaction or the purchase approval letter, etc. presented from △△△ice, etc., but was aware that there was a defect in issuing the purchase approval, etc., so the instant transaction is not subject to zero-rate tax.

B. Relevant statutes

○ Application of Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The zero tax rates shall apply to the supply of the following goods or services:

1. Exported goods;

Article 24 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17460, Dec. 31, 2001)

(1) Exports provided for in Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall include domestic goods (including marine products caught by Korean vessels in a foreign country).

(2) The exported goods under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall be deemed to include the goods falling under each of the following subparagraphs:

1. Goods supplied by a businessman by means of a local letter of credit or a written confirmation of purchase;

Article 9-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 258 on April 12, 2002)

(1) For the purpose of Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree and Article 26 (1) 2-2 of the Decree, the term “local letter of credit as provided for in Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree and Article 26 (1) 2-2 of the Decree means a letter of credit issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank within twenty days after the taxable period in which the goods

(2) The term "purchase approval" in Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree and Article 26 (1) 2-2 of the Decree means the approval issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank within 20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods or services belongs,

Added Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1771, Apr. 12, 2002>

○ Application of Article 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amended provisions of Article 9-2 (2) shall apply to the first purchase confirmation after this Rule enters into force.

○ Tax rate shall apply to the goods supplied under the General Rules of the Value-Added Tax Act 11-24-9 or written confirmation of purchase, regardless of whether the goods are used for the purpose of export after the supply.

○ Delegation and entrustment of authority under Article 53 of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 6977 of September 29, 2003)

(1) Part of the authority of the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy under this Act may be delegated to the heads of affiliated agencies, Mayors/Do Governors, and the heads of administrative agencies concerned, customs officers, the Governor of the Bank of Korea, heads of foreign exchange banks, and other corporations

○ Issuance, etc. of a written confirmation of purchase under Article 38-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18200, Dec. 30, 2003)

(1) Where a person who intends to purchase raw materials or goods for foreign exchange earnings files an application for confirmation in order to obtain the zero tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy may issue a document confirming that he purchases raw materials or goods for foreign exchange earnings (hereinafter referred to as the "purchase confirmation

(2) The Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy shall perform follow-up management for the purchase of raw materials or goods for foreign exchange earnings to a person who has been issued a written confirmation of purchase under paragraph (1).

(3) Necessary matters concerning procedures for applying for a purchase confirmation and post management under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be determined and published by the Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy.

○ Delegation and entrustment of authority under Article 116 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act

(14) The Minister of Commerce, Industry and Energy shall entrust the authority on the issuance of written confirmation of purchase and post management referred to in Article 38-2 to the heads of foreign exchange banks pursuant to Article 53 (1)

○ Application, etc. for the issuance of a purchase confirmation under Article 4-2-7 of the former Foreign Trade Management Regulations (amended by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 2001-71 of Jun. 26, 2001) (amended by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 2003-15 of Feb. 6, 2003)

(1) The head of a foreign exchange bank may issue purchase certificates pursuant to one of the following subparagraphs:

1. A letter of credit for export; 2. An export contract; 3. Foreign currency purchase (deposit); 4. Local letter of credit; 5. purchase confirmation; 6. Documents proving that goods, etc. provided for foreign exchange earnings under the subparagraphs of Article 34 of the Decree are cases of production;

(2) A person who intends to obtain a purchase confirmation shall file an application with the head of a foreign exchange bank for confirmation of purchase of raw materials (goods) in attached Form 4-2, along with the following documents:

1. One copy of a document falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1);

2. A contract for supply of goods or a certificate of sale of goods for foreign exchange earnings;

(3) The head of a foreign exchange bank may issue secondary purchase certificates based on a purchase confirmation issued pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), and where the manufacturing, processing and distribution (including the distribution of finished products) of raw materials or goods for foreign exchange earnings are various stages, he/she may issue them in sequence in each stage.

Addenda

○ Article 2 of the former Regulations on External Trade Management

(1) The purchase approval and the purchase confirmation issued under the provisions of Article 4-2-7 of the Foreign Trade Management Regulations prior to the enforcement date of this public notice shall be deemed the purchase confirmation under this public notice.

(2) The purchase approval and the purchase confirmation under Article 4-2-7 of the previous Foreign Trade Management Regulations may be issued not later than August 31, 2001 in parallel with the purchase confirmation under this public announcement.

Article 9 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export

(1) The head of any customhouse shall, when goods are offered for export, refund the customs duties, etc. levied on raw materials for export of the relevant imported goods within two years retroactively from the date prescribed by

Article 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export

(1) The Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service may, when he deems it necessary to simplify the refund procedure of customs duties, etc. on export goods with special production processes such as when two or more products are simultaneously produced from a single raw material for export and export goods from small and medium enterprises, determine and publicly notify a fixed amount refund rates table by type of the export goods on the basis

Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export;

(2) The head of the relevant customs office may issue a document attesting the amount of customs duties, etc. payable to the goods transacted in a state of import (referring to purchase in a local letter of credit, etc.).

(3) Any person who intends to have a document attesting the customs duties, etc. paid under paragraph (2) issued shall file an application stating the following matters with the head of the competent customs office:

1. Transferor and transferee;

2. Transfer date;

3. The name and specification of the goods;

4. The quantity and tax amount to be transferred.

5. Other matters necessary to certify the amount of customs duties, as determined by the Commissioner of the Customs Service.

Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18087 of Aug. 21, 2003)

(1) When the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service sets forth a fixed amount refund rates table applicable to export goods of small and medium enterprises under Article 13 (1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “simplified fixed amount refund rates table”), he shall determine an appropriate amount of refund on the basis of the average refund amount by item number of export goods or average tax payment amount, etc.

(2) The simplified fixed amount refund rate table under paragraph (1) shall apply only to the goods produced by the persons prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. In this case, if the producer of the exported goods is different, it shall be limited to the case where the producer

Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 325 of Aug. 27, 2003)

For the purpose of Article 16 (2) of the Decree, the term "person prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" means a small and medium enterprise under Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, whose annual refund performance (including the result of issuing the certificate of tax payment on basic raw materials under Article 12 of the Act) for the two years immediately preceding

Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 225 of Nov. 3, 2001)

"Person as determined by Ordinance of the Prime Minister" in Article 16 (2) of the Decree means a small and medium enterprise owner under Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises whose annual refund performance (including the result of issuing the certificate of tax payment on basic raw materials under Article 12 of the Act) for the last two years is not more

Simplified Fixed Amount Refund Rates (Enforcement of January 1, 2001 - omit the front and rear parts)

7106.91-1000

A’s content is not less than 9.99/100 of total weight.

7106.92-1000

Sheet and dies

7106.92-2000

Sheet, sheeting and burging

7106.92-3000

Ships

7106.92-9000

Other

7108.13-1010

For the purpose of semiconductor manufacturing

7108.13-9020

From the date of application for refund on January 10, 203

Simple Fixed Amount Refund Suspension)

7113.11-000

Of silver (whether or not ing or clad with other precious metal)

whether or not)

7113.19-1000

Of synthetic fibres

7113.19-2000

Of gold metal

7115.90-1090

Other

7115.90-9090

Other

C. Determination

(1) Whether the instant written confirmation of purchase and written approval are valid

According to Article 53(1) of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 6977 of Sep. 29, 2003; hereinafter the same), Articles 38-2 and 116(14) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18200 of Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter the same), the authority to issue purchase certificates and follow-up management was transferred to the head of a foreign exchange bank by entrustment of authority. However, since the head of a foreign exchange bank is not required to directly perform the said authority, and there is no need to do so under the laws and regulations, the head of a foreign exchange bank may appoint an agent to act on behalf of the head of the foreign exchange bank through such appointment.

In addition, according to Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17460 of Dec. 31, 2001), Article 9-2(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 258 of Apr. 12, 2002), and Article 4-27(1) of the former Regulations on External Trade Management (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 2003-15 of Feb. 6, 2003), a purchase certificate is sufficient when the head of a foreign exchange bank issues a written confirmation confirming whether the goods purchased by the applicant are raw materials or goods for foreign exchange earnings within 20 days after the end of the taxable period in which the goods are supplied, and it is not sufficient that the head of the foreign exchange bank issues a written confirmation that the goods

In addition, according to Article 24 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 9-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, which applies to the transaction in this case, and Article 9-2 (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, "purchase confirmation" and "purchase approval" are mixed, and even if it is impossible to issue "purchase approval" as of August 31, 201 due to the amendment of the Foreign Trade Management Regulation, the effect of a

Therefore, the defendant's above-mentioned claims in paragraph (1) (2) (a) are without merit.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff was aware of the transaction in this case in collusion with the seller or of the defect in the letter of approval for purchase in this case, etc.

(A) Facts of recognition

1) △△△△, etc. presented to the Plaintiff the instant purchase confirmation, etc. issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank on the basis of a false export contract, etc., and sold the instant purchase confirmation, etc. to other domestic enterprises without exporting it overseas.

2) The Plaintiff, from February 13, 2001 to March 30 of the same year, from October 26, 2000, and from April 25 to May 17 of the same year, from April 2001 to May 23 of the same year, from May 23 to July 24 of the same year (establishment: Establishment: : : 199.1.20; 201. 30. 30. 4.6. 30: 201. 4. 30: 201. 4.6. 30: 205. 1. 205. 1. 205. 1. 1. 205. 1. 1. 205: 200, 201. 30: 200, 200, 31. 25. 30: 1. 1. 25. 201. 1. 1. 3. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 2. 3. 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 1. 2. 1. 1.

3) 원고는 XXXXX제련, XXX통상 등으로부터 지금을 구입하여 △△쥬얼리 등에게 위 지금을 판매하는 이 사건 거래를 하였는데, △△쥬얼리 등으로부터 매출할 지금의 대금을 계좌이체 받은 직후 대략 3분 내지 10분 내외의 시간 안에 XXXXX제련, XXX통상 등 지금의 공급자들에게 입금하는 방법으로 지금을 구입하였다. 통상 지금의 중간도매상은 지금을 구입하고자 하는 자로부터 1차 구매승인서를 수령한 다음 위 1차 구매승인서를 외국환은행의 장에게 제출하여 그로부터 2차 구매승인서를 받아 지금을 판매하고자 하는 자에게 제출하여 지금을 구매한 다음 이를 다시 1차 구매승인서를 제출한 자에게 판매하는 방법으로 순차적으로 지금 거래가 이루어지나, 이 사건에 있어서는 이와 같은 절차가 순차적으로 이루어졌는지 분명하지 않고, 원고 자신의 지금구입 자금은 준비되지 않은 상태에서 △△쥬얼리 등으로부터 수령한 지금구입 대금을 그대로 XXXXX제련 등 지금의 공급자들에게 지급한 후, 공급자들에게 의뢰하여 원고를 경유하지 않고 직접 △△쥬얼리 등에게 지금을 운송하도록 하였다.

4) ① 원고와 XX상사는 이 사건 지금거래를 하면서 지금 운송업체인 주식회사 ○○○코리아에게 지금의 운송을 의뢰하였는데, 원고는 ○○○코리아에게 XXXXX제련, 주식회사 ○○스타 등으로부터 지금을 인수하여 XX상사에게 배송해 줄 것을 요청하고, XX상사는 ○○○코리아에게 자신에게 배송하지 말고 자신의 매출처인 △△코리아나 △△△주얼리에게 직접 배송해 줄 것을 요청하였다. 이에 ○○○코리아는 XXXXX제련이나 ○○스타로부터 지금을 인수하여 원고와 XX상사를 거치지 않고 직접 △△코리아나 △△△주얼리에게 지금을 배송하였다.

그럼에도 원고는 'XXXXX제련, ○○스타에서 ○○실업까지'의 운송료를, XX상사는 '원고에서 XX상사까지, XX상사에서 △△코리아, △△△주얼리까지'의 운송료를 각 지급하고, ○○○코리아로부터 각 세금계산서를 교부받았다.

② 그런데, 원고가 운영하는 ○○실업 사무소는 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 35-3에 소재하고 있고, 정XX가 운영하는 XX상사의 사무소는 XX시 XX구 XX동 3504에 소재하고 있음에도, 원고가 ○○○코리아에게 보낸 것으로 되어 있는 2001.6.26.자 운송물의뢰서(을 68호증의 1, 원고가 ○○○코리아에게 XXXXX제련으로부터 ○○실업까지의 지금운송을 의뢰한 서류)와 정XX가 ○○○코리아에게 보낸 것으로 되어 있는 같은 날자의 운송물의뢰서 2장(을 68호증의 2, 3, 정XX가 ○○○코리아에게 ○○실업으로부터 XX상사까지, XX상사에서 △△코리아까지의 지금운송을 의뢰한 각 서류)은 모두 같은 시각에, 같은 장소에서, 같은 팩스기기로 연속해서 3장이 보내진 것들이다.

In addition, among the above written request for cargo, the letter of approval of the Plaintiff's request for cargo shall contain the Plaintiff's genuine signature, but the letter of approval of the two copies of the written request for cargo, which are requested by the prescribed XX, shall be written in the letter of approval by the Plaintiff, but shall be written in the letter of approval by the other person other than the fixed

In addition, the signature of the 'fixed XX' in each of the above shipping requests and the signature of the 'INVICE (Evidence 4)' under the false export contract, which is found to have been made by the ○○ Jewferer, a foreign company for the current export purpose, is the same.

③ 원고와 △△무역도 이 사건 지금거래를 하면서 ○○○코리아에게 지금의 운송을 의뢰하였는데, 원고는 ○○○코리아에게 XXXXX제련으로부터 지금을 인수하여 △△무역에게 배송해 줄 것을 요청하고, △△무역은 ○○○코리아에게 자신에게 배송하지 말고 자신의 매출처인 △△△주얼리나 XX금은에게 직접 배송해 줄 것을 요청하였다. 이에 ○○○코리아는 XXXXX제련으로부터 지금을 인수하여 원고와 △△무역을 거치지 않고 직접 △△△주얼리나 XX금은에게 배송하였다.

그럼에도 원고는 'XXXXX제련에서 ○○실업까지'의 운송료를, △△무역은 '원고에서 △△무역까지, △△무역에서 △△△주얼리, XX금은 등까지'의 운송료를 각 지급하고, ○○○코리아로부터 각 세금계산서를 교부받았다.

5) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff had worked for about 25 years in △△ Metal Co., Ltd. before running the wholesale business such as ○○ Unemployment, and had been in charge of gold purchase business for about 12 years at the time of retirement. The Plaintiff is an expert in the current transaction since it had been established ○ Unemployment and had been engaged in the sales business for about 4 years until 2001.

6) On July 9, 2002, the Plaintiff established ○○○○ (the Plaintiff on the part of the representative), and closed ○○○○○○○○ (the Plaintiff) on August 1, 201 of the same year. The shareholders of ○○○○ (the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff) who was the sales partner of the instant transaction, had been ○○○ and ○○○, etc. (the representative director was ○○), and the shareholders of ○○○○○ (the representative director, ○○, and director’s ○○), but the ○○○○ was the shareholders of ○○○○○○○○ and the director. The representative of △△△△△ Trade, Inc., which had a transaction relation with ○○○○○○

7) ① The Plaintiff, the sales office of this case, △△△△△△ice, △△△△, the sales office of this case, purchased the current zero tax rate from the Plaintiff and sold to the domestic company without exporting it. The tax office filed a complaint against the representative director of each of the above sales office, but all of them were dismissed from prosecution.

② The Plaintiff, etc. purchased the current zero tax rate from the Plaintiff, etc., and sold the XX metal to the Plaintiff, etc., but the XX metal did not export it and distributed illegally in the Republic of Korea, and subsequently closed down business with the deficit of KRW 7.8 billion. The tax authority filed a complaint on the current suspicion of evading the value-added tax related to illegal transactions on the basis of the XX metal, against the actual operator of the ○○○ Human Investment and the ○○ Human Investment Investment. The tax authority filed a complaint on the current suspicion of evading the value-added tax on illegal transactions (the representative △△△△△△’s △△△△), but the prosecution is suspended temporarily for the escape or temporarily for the △△△△△△△ Director’s △△△△△△ Director.

8) ① The Plaintiff’s profit remaining from the purchase and sale of the instant transaction is about 0.3% of the average during the first preliminary return period in 2001, 0.5% of the final return period in 2001, and 0.5% of the period during which the second preliminary return period in 2001 was filed, and 0.5% of the amount during the second preliminary return period in 2001, and 0.4% of the amount during the second final return period in 201.

② 원고는 이 사건 거래를 위하여 XXXXX제련 등으로부터 3%의 관세가 포함된 가격에 지금을 매입하였고, △△쥬얼리 등도 원고로부터 3%의 관세가 포함된 가격에 지금을 매입하였다. 그러나 원고는 위 지금의 매입처들로부터 소위 '분할증명서1)'를 교부받았으나, △△쥬얼리 등에게 분할증명서를 교부한 적은 없다.

③ If an exporter cannot receive a certificate of subdivision from a company that purchased the present, it would be difficult to refund 3% of customs duties from the Korea Customs Service, and thus, even if the exporter gets operating income equivalent to 0.3% or 0.5% of the current trade, it would be considered to have suffered losses equivalent to 2.5% or 2.7% of the sales revenue.

(4) The Korea Customs Service implemented no document (P/L) electronic refund without documents to support export competitiveness of exporters by simplification of the procedures for refund of customs duties, and led to approximately 55% of the total number of refund.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6-1 to 48, Gap evidence 7-1 to 8, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 3 to 6, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10 to 48 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 68-73 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 75-1 and Eul evidence 75-2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(B) Determination

1) Unless there exist special circumstances, such as the fact that the current supplier supplied to a buyer does not affect the application of zero-rate tax rate to the seller, and that there is a defect in the process of issuing a purchase approval, a purchase approval issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank cannot be deemed as null and void a year, and that there is a defect in the process of issuing a purchase approval, the supply of goods by the purchase approval cannot be immediately excluded from zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act solely on the ground of such defect in the process of issuing the purchase approval (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13735, Jan. 26, 2006).

2) In full view of the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned facts, even if the Plaintiff conspireds with △△△ice, etc. to engage in the instant transaction, or was not recruited, it appears that the Plaintiff engaged in the instant transaction while being aware of the defects such as the letter of approval for purchase of the instant case.

① The Plaintiff’s sales office, △△△△△, etc. purchased zero-rate tax on a short-term basis, and distributed it illegally in the Republic of Korea without exporting it. In the process, the Plaintiff avoided and discontinued a large amount of value-added tax from February 13, 2001 to December 28, 2001, the Plaintiff also changed the sales office on a second-third-month basis (from February 13, 2001 to March 30, 2001) and subsequently changed the sales office on a second-third-month basis (from March 25, 2001 to May 17, 2001), △△△△△△△△ (hereinafter “△△△”). The Plaintiff’s sales office, etc. purchased the zero-rate tax rate on a short-term basis, and distributed it illegally in the Republic of Korea without exporting it. Then, the Plaintiff also closed the sales office on a short-term basis by taking into account the following circumstances: the Plaintiff’s trading company’s ○○ Investment (i.e., July 231, 201 to 2019.201.

② 원고는 자신의 자금으로 지금의 공급업체(XXXXX제련 등)에게 지금구매대금을 지급한 후 지금을 인도받아 이를 지금의 구입업체(△△쥬얼리 등)에게 건네주는 방식이 아닌, 이 사건 거래 전부에 대하여 지금의 구입업체들로부터 지금구매대금을 입금받은 후 약 3분~10분 내외의 시간 안에 지금의 공급업체들에게 위 입금받은 지금구매대금을 지급함으로써 원고 자신의 자금이 전혀 소요되지 아니하였는바, 사정이 이와 같다면 지금의 구입업체들이 지금의 공급업체들로부터 직접 지금을 구입할 수 있었음에도 더 많은 비용을 들여 원고를 경유하여 지금을 구입할 만한 합리적인 이유를 발견할 수 없는 점.

③ 원고는 지금 운송업체에게 매입처(XXXXX제련 등)로부터 ○○실업에게로 지금운송을 의뢰하고, △△쥬얼리 등은 ○○실업으로부터 △△쥬얼리 등에게, 그리고 △△쥬얼리 등으로부터 국내의 다른 지금 거래업체에게로 지금운송을 의뢰함으로써, 결국 XXXXX제련 등에서 원고와 △△쥬얼리 등을 경유하지 아니하고 △△쥬얼리 등이 지시하는 국내의 다른 거래업체에게로 직접 지금이 운송되었음에도, 지금 운송업체는 원고와 △△쥬얼리 등의 요구에 의하여 원고와 △△쥬얼리 등에게 지금이 운송되었던 것처럼 세금계산서를 각 발행한 사실에 비추어, 원고는 이 사건 거래로 인한 지금이 △△쥬얼리 등에게 인도되는 것이 아니라 국내의 다른 거래업체에게로 인도된다는 사정을 알 수 있었을 것으로 보이는 점.

Furthermore, at the same point of view, two copies of the written request for cargo under the name of the Plaintiff (No. 68-1) and two copies of the written request for cargo under the name of the Plaintiff (No. 68-2, 3) were sent to the transport company in the same place, such as facsimile devices, and the Plaintiff’s request for cargo under the name of the Plaintiff appears to have been genuine, but the written request for cargo under the name of the Plaintiff appears to have been made by a person other than the fixed twenty head. Furthermore, the signature under the export contract (No. 4) that the Plaintiff sent to the foreign company to export the present date is the same as the signature under the name of the 2nd fixed head of the above goods. In light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of the fact that the final underwriter of the instant transaction was a domestic trading company, not a △△ Doro, etc.

④ The Plaintiff’s total period in charge of gold purchase is about 16 years, which is an expert in a transaction, and the Plaintiff appears to have had a friendly relationship with an officer of Cheongju and ○○ Entertainment, a sales agent of the instant transaction through Do○○, etc.

(5) Each representative director of △△△△△, △△△, and △△△ Trade has escaped or been divingd, and all of the ○○○’s actual operator of the Investment Company filed a complaint, but the accusation was temporarily suspended due to the escape or de facto suspension of indictment of the x metal representative director, who is the trading company.

(6) The Plaintiff purchased a premium rate of approximately 0.3% to 0.5% from the instant transaction, and 3% from the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff did not receive a divided certificate, the Plaintiff could sufficiently have known that it would face the situation of exporting the Plaintiff due to the loss equivalent to approximately 2.7% to 2.5%. However, the Plaintiff did not issue a divided certificate to △△△, etc., which is not a well-known fact that the Plaintiff would not export the instant transaction to a foreign country but distribute it in the Republic of Korea.

3) On this point, in order to simplify the procedures for refund of customs duties and support small and medium manufacturing enterprises with no capacity to file an application for individual refund (small and medium enterprises with annual customs refund amounting to 300 million won or less), the Plaintiff asserts that there is a simple fixed amount refund system (Article 13(1) of the Act on Special Cases, Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act) that recognizes the refund of customs duties without submitting a certificate of partition, and that the issuance of a certificate of partition is often and systematically permitted. In the situation where the issuance of a certificate of partition is not requested, the Plaintiff did not issue a certificate of partition because the Plaintiff did not request the issuance of a certificate of partition from the sales office of the instant case, and that there is a difficulty in imposing additional burden, such as the Plaintiff’s placement and management of a separate employee to receive the refund due to the fact that the Plaintiff did not request the issuance of a certificate of

As seen earlier, the Korea Customs Service does not have any additional burden by simplification of the procedures for refund of customs duties, such as implementation of an electronic duty refund system without documents, and it is assumed that the Plaintiff itself was aware of the fact that it was not issued once a divisional certificate to △△△△△, etc. that it would directly export the previous purchase of the instant case on the ground that it would directly export the purchase certificate from the purchaser.

In addition, Article 16 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18087, Aug. 21, 2003) provides that "for a simplified fixed amount refund rate shall apply only to goods produced by a person prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy", and Article 12 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, Aug. 27, 2003) provides that "small and Medium Business Operators under Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises who are prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy and whose annual amount of refund is not more than 300 million won for the year immediately preceding the year in which an application for refund is filed." Thus, in order to receive a simplified fixed amount refund, a small and medium business proprietor under Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small

However, since the Plaintiff’s sales offices opened business in 2001, △△△ and all of the Plaintiff’s sales offices engaged in business, it is not clear whether the Plaintiff’s refund performance for the immediately preceding two years of the year (2001) to which the date of filing an application for customs refund due to the instant transaction belongs, and it does not meet the requirements of the above paragraph (1) and whether △△△ and △△△△ Investment’s refund performance for the immediately preceding two years is below 300 million won.

In addition, the present case of this case transacted between the plaintiff and △△ju, etc. is merely "goods not produced" but "goods which are not processed" by the plaintiff or the plaintiff's sales office, and does not meet the requirements of the above paragraph (2). [The letter of confirmation of purchase and the letter of approval (the No. 6-12-1000 2) are written in the HS code (the HS code) as "7108-12-100 2)" and the name "name amount" respectively. The present case of this case falls under "7108-12-1000" under the tariff schedule as it is not subject to the simplified fixed amount refund rate (the enforcement of January 1, 2001). Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion against this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

* Note *

1) Under Article 9(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Act”), and Article 10(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, documents attesting the amount of customs duties, etc. paid by the customs collector in order to get refund of customs duties imposed on raw materials for export are called the so-called 's certificate of division'. In this case, each seller shall issue to each purchaser a certificate of division, but then each exporter from a foreign country can finally purchase a certificate of subdivision and then refund customs duties paid by the first importer from the customs collector.

* Note *

2. Item No. 7108: Gold (including gold ingots, but limited to those not processed, of the shape of a primary product or of the minute);