Whether the purchase tax invoice related to gold bullion is false;

In case of compiling the factual basis, the disposition that did not deduct the input tax amount is legitimate because it is difficult to view that the actual supplier of the gold bullion and the supplier were not aware or was not aware of the fact that the actual supplier of the gold bullion is different.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 7 (Supply of Value-Added Tax Act)

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,350,913,280 on December 1, 2004 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2004 and the rejection of refund of KRW 939,10,410 on each of them shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that ○○○○○○○2, Busan, runs the precious metal wholesale business in 601 with an import shop of ○○○○○.

B. During the first taxable period of 2004, the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion totaling KRW 1,826 km (hereinafter “the gold bullion in this case”) from a domestic wholesaler during the first taxable period of 27,417,197,835, and reported the refund of value-added tax by deeming the total value of supply to be the zero-rate export of KRW 27,721,628,413 in the aggregate of the supply value in the Gadridex located in Hong Kong. Of them, the Plaintiff refunded KRW 1,802,573,30 for the portion of the transaction from January 204 to March, 204, and reported the refund of KRW 939,106,410 for the portion of transaction from April 204 to June.

(c) The details of return and refund of the value-added tax by the Plaintiff are as follows:

(Voting: omitted)

D. As a result of a tax investigation conducted on September 1, 2004 with the Plaintiff, the Defendant found that the Plaintiff filed a return unjustly by disguised transaction for the purpose of evading tax, and rejected the Plaintiff’s refund of KRW 27,417,197,835 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”) on the ground that the total purchase price received from six enterprises, such as ○○, etc. (hereinafter “the instant purchase transaction entity”) during the first taxable period of 2004 was false, on the ground that the purchase tax invoice of KRW 27,417,197,835 (hereinafter “the instant tax invoice”). On December 1, 2004, the Defendant deducted the input tax amount on the instant tax invoice from the input tax invoice, and notified the Plaintiff of the correction of the value-added tax amount of KRW 2,350,913,280 (including additional tax amount of KRW 548,39,950), and rejected the refund of KRW 939,106,410 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

E. On May 3, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal as the Korean Supreme Court Decision 2005Da316, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on May 3, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the instant gold bullion normally, and paid the purchase price (including value-added tax) through financial transactions, and all the purchased gold was exported to Y○○○, located in Hong Kong through normal channels, and the purchase price was deposited in the Plaintiff’s deposit account. Therefore, since all the gold bullion transactions are normal transactions consistent with the actual conditions, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant gold bullion solely based on several circumstances, including the fact that there is a company with a bomb on the extension line of the Plaintiff’s trading company, is contrary to the principle of taxation based on the ground of taxation.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 7 (Supply of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 11 (Application of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 24 (Scope of Export)

Article 106-3 (Special Taxation of Value-Added Tax on Gold Metals)

Article 106-3 (Special Taxation of Value-Added Tax on Gold Metal Trade)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A general form, etc. of an irregular gold bullion transaction for the purpose of tax evasion

(A) According to Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of exported goods. In addition, Article 106-3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762 of Dec. 11, 2002 and enforced from July 1, 2003) and Article 106-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17829 of Dec. 30, 2002 and enforced from July 1, 2003) provide that the value-added tax shall be exempted for gold bullion imported by gold craftsmen and refiners who received tax-free gold bullion import recommendation from the tax-free gold bullion importer, and for gold bullion imported by gold craftsmen, etc. upon receiving a tax-free import recommendation from the tax-free gold bullion importer.

(B) By abusing such a zero-value added tax or tax exemption system, it is possible to import gold bullion and distribute it as tax exemption through various stages of wholesalers. The so-called "large Carbon Business" is converted into tax exemption, and the sales tax invoice is issued and issued at a price lower than the purchase price and let a trader deduct the input tax amount by selling the gold bullion at a price lower than the purchase price and allowing the trader to deduct the input tax amount. The exporter exports the gold bullion to be taxable through multiple stages of wholesalers and then distributes the unpaid value-added tax, and the so-called "large Carbon Business" in the form of "large Carbon Business" to evade the transaction collection value-added tax, and to get the unpaid value-added tax to be refunded among the precious metal business entities located in Seoul ○○-gu from 202 to 202. It is more detailed about the type of "large Carbon Business" as follows.

1) In external appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ? Foreign Company ? Import-free wholesale ? Tax-free wholesale ? Tax-free wholesale ? Tax-free wholesale ? Taxation ? Export ? Foreign Company ? The transaction amount is paid in succession from the exporter to the importer, but in particular, the taxable wholesaler issues tax invoices according to the specific person or specific company’s instructions, and is not actually engaged in the transaction or transportation of gold bullion.

2) After purchasing gold bullion as a tax-free gold and selling it as a tax-free gold, the company evades the value-added tax by withdrawing and concealing the profit within a short period of time and closing its business. In this case, the company sells gold bullion with the supply price lower than the purchase price, but the supply price added to the value-added tax is higher than the purchase price, and the value-added tax collected is not paid. Therefore, the company obtains a substantial benefit from the difference between the supply price and the purchase price.

3) Meanwhile, the value-added tax collected by a trade-related company shall be successively transferred by each of the companies in the immediately preceding phase through the tax invoice received from the immediately preceding phase company to deduct the input tax amount. Ultimately, the exporter's export of gold bullion and then to be refunded by the State in accordance with the application of the zero-rate tax rate. As such, among the amounts refunded by the State, the substantial portion of the value-added tax that is not paid by the trade-related company is the ultimate source of

The profit is distributed to the domestic companies involved in the wide coal business in the form of Magin at each trading stage, or distributed in the form of so-called Magin, and also distributed to foreign companies involved in the wide coal business in the form of the difference between the import price and the export price (the export price is lower than the import price if based on domestic companies).

4) In order to maximize profits, the maximum quantity of gold bullion in a short term is distributed to maximize profits. In order to prevent disputes among the participating companies, or accidents, such as loss of price, etc., most of the same former owners (referring to a person preparing for the import fund of gold bullion from the outside of the bomb business network) operate simultaneously with the exporting company and the importing company. The former owners shall be placed in direct transactions with the bombing company, and the former owners shall determine the volume of the transaction, unit price, and mast, etc. at each stage of transaction, and the former owner shall determine the volume of the transaction, unit price, and math, etc. at each stage of transaction, and the series of transactions from the importing company to the exporting company shall be transported immediately into the exporting company by hanging the transaction stage ( even if transported at each stage of transaction at each stage, this is merely a formal transport for disguised trade).

(2) The details of establishment of the Plaintiff

(A) On January 13, 2004, the Plaintiff was established by the ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ 601 as an executive officer of the representative director’s salary class, director’s regular ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

(B) A person, the representative director of the Plaintiff, who was engaged in 320 times during the period from January 1, 200 to June 30, 2004 in Japan, and was engaged in funeral services. The Plaintiff’s business was not aware of the Plaintiff’s business, and KRW 200 million out of the funds invested by the Plaintiff was merely a representative director under the name of the Plaintiff, such as investing ○○’s funds in the form of borrowing them through ○○.

(C) The Plaintiff’s director Park Jong-young, a director of the Plaintiff, is the front place of Park Jong-young, who operated a gold wholesaler for a long time, and only operated a retail business selling miscellaneously from May 5, 2001 to April 29, 2003, and did not operate precious metal wholesale business.

(D) On June 2, 2003, 2003, 00 ○○-dong 3, which is the regular manager of the Plaintiff, opened and operated the gold bullion exporter, a gold bullion exporter, with the aid of 0-15 through 0-15, and closed down on February 28, 2004 (the Article 00 was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment from the prosecutor's office on April 29, 2008) while operating ○○-dong 3, which is a corporate company, established the Plaintiff and located in the Seoul office, and operated the Plaintiff substantially.

(E) The Plaintiff’s auditor leapone is merely in charge of facsimile arrangement and office management at the Busan office, and is not capable of operating precious metal wholesale business.

(3) Matters concerning the purchase transaction office of the instant case

(A) The purchase transaction office of this case is six enterprises including ○○○○, ○○ Co., Ltd., ○○, ○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○, ○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○, ○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., and ○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○ Co., Ltd.,

(B) The Plaintiff’s major purchase and trade office, ○○○, Inc., Ltd., which is the Plaintiff’s major purchase and trade office. The representative director was a company operating ○○○ or ○○ Office, which was operated by the Plaintiff’s Seoul office, and closed the gold wholesale business on October 15, 2004. On March 2004, ○○○ Office and ○○ Office kept a detailed statement of trading as if they sold gold bullion with ○ precious metal, and was convicted of having issued false tax invoices (Dasan District Court Decisions 2004Da856, Busan High Court Decision 2005No382, Busan High Court Decision 2005Do7299). In addition, ○○○○ Office established and operated ○○○○○ Fund, which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for gold bullion in around 195.

(C) On June 13, 2007, Seoul High Court sentenced 9 years of imprisonment and fine 232 billion won to the effect that ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., which is the Plaintiff’s major purchasing and trading office, is a company in which the representative director substantially controls and operates the ○○○○○ or the heart ○○○○○○ date, etc., and ○○○ date was a crime that “the ○○ date was actually controlled by an importing firm of gold (the ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., the ○○○○○ Co., Ltd., the ○○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., the ○○○○○○”) and the Dominant Co., Ltd., the ○○ date was dismissed on October 11, 2007 (the ○○55777).”

(D) On July 24, 2008, the Seoul High Court sentenced 8 years of imprisonment and fine of KRW 170 billion to 200 billion (Supreme Court Decision 2008No385 Decided July 24, 2008). It was a criminal fact that the ○○○ in collusion with ○○○, a pro-friendly company of the Plaintiff, ○○○○, the Plaintiff’s purchase and trade office, was committed by using the said ○○ in sequence with ○○○, the representative director of ○○, in order.

(E) On January 2, 2008, the Plaintiff’s purchase and trade partner, Park Jong-kon (which is the Plaintiff’s purchase and trade partner) was sentenced to imprisonment of 5 years and fine of 15 billion won and fine of 15 billion won in the Seoul Central District Court (which was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da792), and appealed to the Seoul High Court on May 10, 2008 (which was sentenced to dismissal of appeal on June 28, 2008). The Plaintiff, in collusion with the actual operator of 45 wide coal companies, purchased gold bullion as taxation from the above large coal companies, and transferred the transaction price (including value-added tax) to the large coal companies through taxation tools. The above 45 large coal companies were exempted from value-added tax in the manner that they did not keep their assets in the name of the pertinent company.

(4) Specific details of the instant gold bullion transaction

(A) All the instant gold bullion transactions were conducted in the form of export to Hong Kong on the date of import by Hong Kong or on which the Plaintiff, who is the exporter, was finally engaged in the export business through the 2-3 wholesale business at the 2-stage 3rd stage.

(B) Although the materials were submitted in each stage of the instant gold bullion transactions, there is no evidence to prove that the instant gold bullion was transported at each stage.

(C) The export of the gold bullion of this case was made by means of so-called handlry, which directly delivers to the ○○ Scpec, using transportation books, and was distributed gold bullion from the office of the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff’s office, from ○○○, Ma○, Ma○, and Ma○○, which was the transportation books, to the Plaintiff’s office, and transported gold bullion from ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, the highest part of the gold bullion (stock company ○○).

(D) The Plaintiff’s export price was the price lower than the international market price, as well as the domestic market price on the date of exportation.

(E) On the other hand, gold bullion importers pay customs duties equivalent to 3% of the price of gold bullion at the time of the import of gold bullion, which is included in the transaction price of gold bullion and transferred to the purchaser, and gold bullion exporters are entitled to refund 3% of customs duties paid to the purchaser. For that purpose, gold bullion exporters are entitled to receive a divisional certificate from the purchaser transaction office under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export. In the instant gold bullion transaction, the parties, including the Plaintiff, did not receive at all necessary divisional certificates for the refund of customs duties. Accordingly, while the Plaintiff exported the instant gold bullion, they did not receive at all 3% of customs duties paid at the time of the initial import.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 80, Eul evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 5-1 through 4, Eul 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12-1 through 4, Eul evidence 24, 25, 26, Eul evidence 27, 28, 29-1, 20, Eul evidence 30, Eul evidence 31-1, Eul evidence 32, 33, Eul evidence 34-1, 25 through 38, Eul evidence 34-1, 35 through 38, Eul evidence 4-4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-4, Eul evidence 5-1 to 4, Eul evidence 5-4, Eul evidence 6-1, evidence 30-1, Eul evidence 32, Eul evidence 4-1 to 4, and evidence 5-1-4.

D. Determination

(1) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority. As such, the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. In a case where a considerable degree of proof on this point has been made to the extent that the defendant reasonably acceptable, the plaintiff, the taxpayer who raised that the tax invoice is not false, is in a position to easily present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14168, Jun. 10, 2005).

In addition, in Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice shall be issued to an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services, such as a person who delivers or provides services due to contractual causes, and a tax invoice shall be issued to the supplier. Furthermore, the person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed a person who actually provides goods or services to the supplier, not a person who establishes a nominal legal relationship with the supplier or the supplier, but a person who actually provides goods or services to the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). Other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice shall be deemed to be a person who actually provided goods or services to the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Feb. 27, 2002).

(2) In respect of the instant case, the following circumstances revealed in the facts of recognition:

① Although the gold bullion was distributed through various stages of wholesale business within a very short period from the import to the export price, there was no added value in the process, and the export price was lower than the import price, and was an abnormal transaction structure for export. The ultimate source of revenue obtained by each transaction party was the part of the value-added tax refunded by the exporting company. ② The export price of the gold bullion in this case is considerably low compared with international market prices and domestic market prices, so it cannot be explained as other transactions for the purpose of refunding value-added tax. ③ The so-called so-called "gold bullion business" was widely known to the industry of gold bullion in this case, and even if it was actually operated by the Plaintiff for the purpose of selling gold bullion in this case, it can be seen that the Plaintiff was actually involved in the purchase of gold bullion in the process of selling gold bullion in this case, and it can be seen that the Plaintiff was actually involved in the purchase of gold bullion in the process of delivering gold bullion at the same time as the Plaintiff's sales agent's price for the gold bullion in this case.

C. In full view of the fact that the instant tax invoice constitutes another tax invoice by the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice, and that the Plaintiff’s purchase-fund was revealed in the relevant criminal case as a company and the prior company was involved in the purchase-stock company in the prior stage of the purchase-stock transaction office, including the above company, and that there was no record that the Plaintiff could verify the manufacturing company or brand name, brand name, identification number, net level, etc. of the gold bullion that can be a flexible means of proof at the time of the occurrence of the subsequent distribution, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was not aware or did not know that the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice of the instant gold bullion are different.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition violates the principle of base taxation on different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.