The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual gold bullion was traded on the disposition due to the processing transaction

Even if a tax amount is determined normally by issuing and delivering a tax invoice for a formal transaction and submitting a tax base and tax return, it is a processed transaction without any real transaction for the purpose of refunding value added tax, and an additional tax not paid for the processed transaction is unreasonable.

Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 560,59,90 in excess of KRW 560,59,90 in the imposition disposition of KRW 753,942,140 in 203 against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2005, and the imposition disposition of KRW 5,373,96,967,260 in the imposition disposition of KRW 5,557,756,140 in 203, and the imposition disposition of KRW 6,164,741,920 in the imposition disposition of KRW 6,164,741,920 in 204, exceeds KRW 6,118,342,240 in the imposition disposition of KRW 6,125,389,850 in the imposition disposition of KRW 204, and KRW 1,080,895, KRW 470 in the imposition disposition of KRW 1,052,3636 each.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 753,942,140 for one year 2003 against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2005, and KRW 5,57,756,140 for two years 203, and KRW 6,164,741,920 for one year 2004, KRW 125,389,850 for two years 2004, and KRW 1,080,895,470 for corporate tax of 2003, and KRW 1,052,230,630 for corporate tax of 204, and KRW 1,052, and KRW 230 for corporate tax of 204. (The amount of tax stated in the purport of the claim for modification of the purport of claim as of March 24, 2008, and each amount of tax stated in the purport of each of the above tax are deemed to be a clerical error.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 6, 2003, the Plaintiff was established with the trade name "○ Predive metal Co., Ltd.", which was changed to the current trade name on February 3, 2005, and the wholesale and retail business, trade business, etc. of gold bullion, etc. had its head office registered in ○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 55 as its business purpose.

B. The plaintiff was supplied with gold bullion equivalent to KRW 97,071,694,082 in total to the defendant from May 20, 2003 to August 13, 2004, and was supplied with gold bullion equivalent to KRW 97,950,391,795 in Hong Kong for the same period, and exported gold bullion amounting to KRW 97,950,391,795 in Hong Kong to two enterprises of "Gold Telecommunications Ltd" and " Qualityia Telecommunications Ltd." (hereinafter the export site in this case), while the plaintiff supplied gold bullion amounting to KRW 939,946,31 in total to four enterprises, such as ○○○○○net, etc., and completed the return of value-added tax for each period as described below (value-added tax return details). Based on this, the plaintiff completed the return of value-added tax for each business year in 203 and 204 as stated below.

다. 피고는 2004.10.8. 2005.8.23. 까지 원고에 대하여 특별세무조사를 실시한 결과, 원고가 2003년 1기부터 2004년 2기까지의 부가가치세 과세기간 중 주식회사 ○우(이하 ○우라고 한다. 이하 원고의 매입처 및 그 선행 매입처들은 대부분 주식회사의 형태이고, 이하 편의상 모두 주식회사 명칭을 생략한다) 등 20개 업체(이하 이 사건 매입처들 이라고 한다)로부터 수취한 매입가액 합계 97,071,694,082원의 매입세금계산서는 사실과 다른 매입세금계산서라는 이유로 위 세금계산서상의 매입세액을 공제하지 않기로 함과 더불어 세금계산서 합계표 미제출 등 가산세와 신고불성실 가산세, 납부 불성실 가산세 등을 가산하여 아래 '처분내역' 중 '2005.12.9.자 처분'란 기재와 같이 2003년 1기부터 2004년 2기까지의 부가가치세(각 가산세 포함) 합계 12,607,329,800원을 부과하는 한편, 이와 함께 원고가 허위의 세금계산서를 수취하였음을 이유로 구 법인세법 (2004.12.31.법률 제7317호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 '구 법인세법'이라 한다) 제76조 제5항에 따라 허위세금계산서상 고급가액 합계액의 2/100에 해당하는 증빙 미수취가산세를 각 같은 란 기재와 같이 2003ㅏ년도 및 2004년도 법인세로 부과하였다(이하 1차 경정처분 이라 한다)

D. After that, on February 13, 2008, the Defendant rendered ex officio a decision to reduce the amount as described in the column of the “second corrective disposition” from among the 'the details of the first corrective disposition' on the ground that there was some error in the calculation of the transaction amount, among the purchase tax invoices on which the first corrective disposition was based on the combination of tax invoices of KRW 40,771,105 in relation to the expenses of account books, etc. (this case’s tax invoice recognized as false or most of the tax invoices in the imposition of the corrected tax amount by the Defendant 35 - 168, the purchase price as total amount of KRW 168 ( = 97,071,694,082-2,40,71,105). The specific details are as stated in the separate tax invoice of this case’s tax invoice of this case, and all of the tax invoices of this case and the final tax invoice of this case were determined through the aforementioned reduction of corporate tax.

*The details of additional tax after the second revision

Value-added tax for 1 year 2003: Total 174,262,659 won (additional tax amounting to 116,063,890 won such as failure to submit a list of total tax invoices + Additional tax amounting to 58,031,945 won);

[2] The value-added tax for 2 years 2003: 1,311,881,741 in total, and KRW 887,120,445 in addition to additional tax such as failure to submit a list of total tax invoices + additional tax for failure to file a return 424,761,296 in total

-1st value-added tax in 2004: Total amount of KRW 1,680,052,020 (additional tax amount of KRW 448,753,596, such as failure to submit a list of total tax invoices + Additional tax of KRW 448,753,596, + Amount of KRW 782,54,828)

The value-added tax for 2 years 2004: Total 67,502,3314 won (additional tax amounting to 29,770,640 won such as failure to submit a list of total tax invoices + Additional tax amounting to 29,770,640 + Additional tax amounting to 7,961,051 won such as failure to submit a list of total tax invoices)

[인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 갑 제2호증, 갑 제4호증 내지 갑 제5호증의 8, 갑 제10호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제11호증의 1, 3, 갑 제12호증의 1, 3, 내지 5, 갑 제13호증의 1, 2, 4, 갑 제14호증의 1, 4, 6, 갑 제15호증의 1, 4, 6, 갑 제16호증의 1, 4, 갑 제17호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제18호증의 1, 4, 갑 제 19호증의 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 15, 갑 제20호증의 1, 4, 7, 9, 갑 제21호증의 1, 4, 갑 제22호증의 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 갑 제23호증의 1, 4, 갑 제24호증의 1, 4, 갑 제25호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제26호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제27호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제28호증의 1, 3, 6, 갑 제29호증의 1, 4, 갑 제30호증의 1, 4, 6, 갑 제31호증의 1, 4, 갑 제32호증의 1, 4, 갑 제33호증의 1, 4, 갑 제34호증의 1, 4, 갑 제35호증의 1, 3, 갑 제36호증의 1, 4, 7, 8, 갑 제37호증의 2, 갑 제38호증의 1, 4, 갑 제39호증의 1, 4, 갑 제40호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제41호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제42호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제43호증의 1, 4, 갑 제44호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제45호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제46호증의 1, 갑 제47호증의 1, 5, 8, 갑 제48호증의 2, 5, 8, 갑 제49호증의 1, 3, 6, 갑 제50호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제51호증의 2, 5, 8, 갑 제52호증의 1, 5, 7, 갑 제53호증의 1, 4, 갑 제54호증의 1, 4, 갑 제55호증의 2, 5, 제 56호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제57호증의 1, 4, 7, 갑 제58호증의 1, 4, 갑 제 59호증의 1, 4, 갑 제 60호증의 1, 6, 갑 제61호증의 1, 7, 갑 제62호증의 4, 7, 갑 제63호증의 1, 7, 갑 제64호증의 1, 7, 갑 제65호증의 1, 8, 갑 제 66호증의 1, 8, 갑 제67호증의 1, 6, 갑 제68호증의 1, 5, 갑 제69호증의 1, 5, 갑 제70호증의 1, 5, 갑 제71호증의 1, 5, 갑 제72호증의 1, 5, 갑 제73호증의 1, 5, 갑 제74호증의 1, 5, 갑 제75호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 76호증의 1, 5, 갑 제77호증의 1, ,5, 갑 제78호증의 1, 4, 갑 제79호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 80호증의 1, 5, 12, 갑 제81호증의 1, 4, 10, 갑 제82호증의 1, 5, 갑 제83호증의 1, 5, 갑 제84호증의 1, 5, 갑 제85호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 86호증의 1, 8, 갑 제87호증의 1, 5, 갑 제88호증의 1, 3, 갑 제89호증의 4, 11, 갑 제90호증의 1, 7, 갑 제91호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 92호증의 1, 5, 갑 제93호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 94호증의 1, 5, 갑 제95호증의 1, 4, 8, 갑 제 96호증의 1, 5, 갑 제97호증의 1, 7, 11, 갑 제98호증의 1, 4, 8, 갑 제102호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 103호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 104호증의 1, 8, 갑 제105호증의 1, 5, 갑 제106호증의 1, 7, 11, 갑 제 107호증의 1, 8, 갑 제 108호증의 1, 4, 갑 제109호증의 1, 7, 11, 갑 제110호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 111호증의 1, 5, 갑 제112호증의 1, 5, 갑 제113호증의 1, 5, 갑 제 114호증의 1, 5, 갑 제11호증의 1, 5, 갑 제116호증의 1, 14, 갑 제117호증의 1, 8, 갑 제 118호증의 1, 7, 갑 제119호증의 1, 7, 갑 제120호증의 1, 6, 13, 갑 제121호증의 4, 갑 제122호증의 1, 7, 갑 제123호증의 1, 6, 갑 제124호증의 1, 5, 10, 갑 제125호증의 1, 4, 10, 갑 제126호증의 1, 6, 을 제1호증의 1 내지 2호증의 2, 을 21호증의 내지 을 제24호증의 4, 을 제26호증의 1 내지 을 제28호증의 35의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff actually purchased gold bullion under the instant tax invoice from the purchaser of the instant case, and such fact can be seen by examining the data, such as the tax invoice, detailed statement of transactions, certificate of sale, application for purchase, receipt, delivery certificate, delivery certificate, and specification of transactions, received from each purchaser.

In addition, at the time of the transaction from each purchaser of this case, the Plaintiff traded after obtaining the copy of the corporate register and the certificate of seal impression, the copy of the passbook from transaction payment, and the certificate of goods delivery from each purchaser at the time of transaction from each purchaser of this case. The Plaintiff deposited the price to the purchaser of this case before the transfer of gold bullion, and the above purchaser deposited the price to the purchaser of this case with the money deposited by the Plaintiff at the time of the gold bullion trading industry, which led to the practice of the gold bullion trading industry at the time of the Plaintiff’s transfer, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff was a false transaction on the ground that the Plaintiff paid gold bullion in advance before the transfer of gold bullion. The Plaintiff’s purchase of gold bullion was imported, and even if the real price of gold bullion was transferred directly to the Plaintiff from the importer of this case or the first wholesaler, the Plaintiff, who received the real price of gold bullion, was aware of the purchase price of this case as the counterpart to the transaction, and there was no reality that the Plaintiff conspired with the purchaser of this case and each preceding importer.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case, which reported differently, should be revoked because all of the disposition of this case are illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 17 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 22 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

Article 76 of the former Corporate Tax Act

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A general form of variable transaction for the purpose of tax evasion in the transaction of gold bullion

(A) Since the zero tax rate is applicable to the supply of goods for export, where the gold bullion is purchased from another wholesaler on the basis of a purchase approval certificate (purchase certificate) upon presenting export-related documents to the foreign exchange bank, the zero tax rate is applied to the input tax amount (Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act). Meanwhile, gold bullion wholesalers and gold bullion refiners supplied by gold bullion wholesalers and gold bullion refiners to those who received tax exemption recommendation from the tax-free gold importers, and gold bullion dealers who received tax exemption recommendation from the tax-free gold importers to June 30, 2005, with respect to the gold bullion imported by the gold bullion importers, etc. (Article 106-3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7577 of Jul. 13, 2005).

As above, when purchasing gold bullion with raw materials for export under the Value-Added Tax Act or the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the case where the value-added tax was paid upon importing gold bullion for the purpose of unfair refund of the value-added tax and selling or exporting gold bullion in disguisedly or through disguised wholesale process after importing gold bullion for the purpose of unfair refund of the value-added tax, and then the case where the value-added tax was paid between precious metal companies in Seoul ○-gu.

(B) The appearance of gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ‘foreign companies ? ? importer companies ? ? ? ? 1 (subscriptive companies) ? ? Domination companies ? ? Export companies ? ? Foreign companies’. The transaction price was paid in sequence from the export company to the import company. However, among the above distribution companies, there were many cases where gold bullions only issue a tax invoice from the large coal company to the floor wholesaler, to the floor wholesaler, and they do not actually trade or transport gold bullions.

(C) After purchasing gold bullion that has been distributed at the zero tax rate at the previous stage, and selling it to the Do government as an additional tax amount equivalent to 10% of the value-added tax, the Do government is unable to collect the value-added tax by withdrawing the profit within the short period in cash and closing the business. The amount equivalent to the value-added tax that the Do government received from the Do government government is successively transferred by each company after deducting the input tax through the tax invoice that the Do government received from the immediately preceding stage of the transaction. Ultimately, the exporter exports gold bullion, and then grants a refund from the State through applying zero tax rate. The portion equivalent to the value-added tax that the Do government has not paid by the Do government after exporting the gold bullion. The above profit is distributed to the domestic company in the form of a math of each transaction or the Do government's profit (the remaining amount after deducting the purchase price from the supply price) of the Do government is distributed separately to the Do government entity in the form of the so-called Mara, and the export price is lower than the domestic export price.

(D) In order to maximize its profit, a gas supply business shall distribute to the greatest number of gold bullions within a normal and short period. ① In order to prevent disputes between involved companies that may arise therefrom, or accidents such as price loss, most of the same poles (referring to those who prepare for the first gold bullion import settlement in the outside of the bomb business network; hereinafter the same shall apply) operate simultaneously with an exporter and the importer; ② to place the former owner in a direct transaction with the bomban company; ③ to determine the volume, unit price, and margin of the transaction at each stage of the transaction; ④ if the former owner actually determines the volume, unit price, and quantity of the transaction at each stage of the transaction; ④ to immediately transport the gold bullion to the exporting company beyond the trading stage and within a short period of less than a day, the latter is mostly a formal transport disguised for a normal transaction ( even if the gold bullion is transported every stage of transaction).

(2) The results of the survey on the Plaintiff-related persons

(A) The head of ○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was engaged in approximately three years in the day related to the release on bail (tentatively named) and was engaged in the import and export of gold bullion upon establishing the Plaintiff around May 2003. On March 2005 and around August 2005 of the same year, he stated that, at the time of undergoing a tax investigation by the Seoul Regional Tax Office, he received the phone number of the export site of this case through a long-distance, and made a transaction by gathering a name or a leaflet from the above export site’s employees, and that, at the airport, the gold bullion price was determined in the way of asking the Plaintiff by telephone the national tax rate of gold bullion at the export site of this case.

(B) In addition, as a result of the above tax investigation, the head of ○ was recognized to have traded the export source of this case with no proper knowledge of accurate personal information, international credit and personal credit, and credit, etc., and the Plaintiff was actually closed since the commencement of the tax investigation by the Seoul Regional Tax Office.

"(c)" as a result of the Seoul Regional Tax Office's investigation, the "Gold World Trade Copa Company" among the export offices of this case, is an importing firm of the same gold bullion, and the "Gold Apex Ldd" and the "Jening Do and Hadid".

Dily, ‘Aly deemed to be managed by the same Hong Kong, in fact, at 786 Ntildling 786 Ntilon, Rod Rodowon, and Long, at Dok K, for each company, even though its place of business is different from each other on the public register,” and (3) the Plaintiff’s tax invoice transaction form of this case is recognized as being managed by the same Hong Kong.

(A) The Plaintiff is subject to the Value-Added Tax period (specific from May 20, 2003 to August 13, 2004) from 1, 2003 to 2, 2004, such as the entry of the instant tax invoice in [Attachment 1] ○

The gold bullion has been purchased from 19 purchasing places such as rain, ○○, ○○, and ○○ gold.

(B) In addition, with respect to each purchase tax invoice listed in attached Table 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, and 37, the Plaintiff sold gold bullion equivalent to the total value of KRW 934,190,040 to domestic companies, such as ○○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○, etc., as indicated in attached Table 2’s purchase and sales details and domestic sales details. The Plaintiff is deemed to export gold bullion total amount of KRW 96,096, 732,937 in relation to the remaining purchase tax invoice.

(C) Among the tax invoices of this case, each purchase tax invoice listed in the table 3 to 7, 9, 11, 13 to 19, 22, 25, 28 through 35, 37 through 58, 60 to 74, 76 through 14, 146 through 158, 161 through 163, and 168 (hereinafter the above purchase tax invoice is referred to as "the tax invoice of this case", and the remaining part of the tax invoice of this case excluding this is referred to as "the tax invoice of this case". The tax invoice of this case is deemed to be "the tax invoice of this case", and all gold bullion in the separate sheet of this case 2 to be exported to the domestic company of this case or sold to the plaintiff, who is the exporter of this case after going through the second stage wholesale of tax exemption on the date on which the import declaration was made, and the detailed amount of gold bullion 3 to 00 "the plaintiff 200 or 50.5 gold bullion".

The flow of a tax invoice: English Standard Ltton Ltd ○○○○ (import at KRW 40km 595,403,802) , ○○○○○ World (Sales at Tax Exemptions) , ○○○○ Global (612,60,000 won) , ○○ Global (Sales at Tax Exemptions in KRW 614,73,280) , ○○○ Global Scene (Sales at Tax Exemptions in KRW 614,73,280) , ○○ U.S. ? (Sales at KRW 562,13,200, value-added tax 56,213,320,000 after tax exemptions were purchased, and sales at KRW 563,20,000,000). ○○ gold ? (Sales at KRW 564,48,69,61 won for export)

Deposit details: Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong GK Ltd. ? Plaintiff (O. 27, 2003. 09: 09:38, Oct. 27, 2003), Plaintiff ? (O. 10:37-10:49, Oct. 27, 2003. 12:10-12-16, Oct. 27, 2003) ? ○○○ Fund (O: 12:45, Oct. 27, 2003. 12:45, 2003), ○○○○ International ? ○○○○ (O. 23, 2003. 13:27, 2003) (O. 13:30, 2003. 27. 13: ○○○○○○○○○ (O. 27, 2003. 13:30), and ○○○○○3713.20

(D) With regard to the tax invoice ① of this case, the wholesalers (so-called so-called companies) that converting gold bullion into the taxable gold in circulation did not fulfill the liability to pay value-added taxes by selling the gold bullion purchased at a price lower than the purchase price (However, the sum of the value-added taxes, i.e., the price for supply, is higher than the purchase price), and voluntarily closing or closing the gold bullion. The specific status of the above companies is as follows.

(E) On the other hand, among the enterprises involved in the transaction of the tax invoice of this case, the judgment of conviction was rendered and finalized on the grounds that the amount was included in the gold bullion transaction for the purpose of evading taxes against each of the relevant parties, and the amount of ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, among the enterprises involved in the transaction of the tax invoice of this case.

(F) In the case of the export transaction in the tax invoice of this case, the price of gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff is lower than the price of the gold bullion imported by the domestic importer (However, the tax invoice details Nos. 55, 57, 89, 90, 99, 100, 103, and 109, 109, 100, 103, and 109). The Plaintiff’s export unit price was set below the minimum price of the gold bullion on the date of the export in many cases, as stated in the [Attachment 7] export unit price of the Plaintiff and the details of the domestic and national tax assessment. However, in the case of gold bullion, a large-scale gold bullion wholesaler, etc. offered gold bullion at the Internet, etc. taking into account the international market price and exchange rate, while the Plaintiff exported gold bullion at a price lower than the domestic and international market price of gold bullion at all times regardless of the above market price, if the Plaintiff or the distributor of this case did not export the gold bullion.

(G) In each of the instant transactions, the parties to the transaction, including the Plaintiff, did not receive at all the divisional certificates under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export, which are necessary for the exporter to refund 3% of customs duties while exporting gold bullion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff exported gold bullion, but did not refund customs duties (3%) borne at the time of its initial import.

[Based on Recognition] In without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6-1 through 7, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 3 through 7-2, Eul evidence 8-2 through 20, Eul evidence 25, Eul evidence 29-1 through Eul evidence 103, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Disposition imposing value-added tax on the tax invoice of this case

(A) Whether the tax invoice of this case constitutes "tax invoice different from "homicide"

1) In principle, the burden of proving that a tax invoice is different from that of a taxpayer should be established on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. In a case where the defendant proves that a tax invoice is not accompanied by a real transaction to the extent that it can be reasonably acceptable, it is necessary to establish compliance with his/her own assertion in view of the fact that the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant's disposition, is in a position of easy presentation of relevant evidence and materials (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du14168, Jun. 10, 2005). In addition, in Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, the defendant should bear the burden of proving that the tax invoice is not accompanied by a real transaction. Furthermore, in a case where the supplier and the supplier did not know that the taxpayer did not actually receive the goods or services under the name of 200 or 200, the supplier and the supplier did not know that they did not actually receive the goods or services under the name of the supplier and the supplier.

2) The following circumstances revealed in the above recognition of the purchase price of gold bullion were widely known to the gold bullion industry at the time of the Plaintiff’s trade in this case. The Plaintiff’s representative director appears to have been in a position to fully know about the breadth coal business in light of his career, and the abnormal export of gold bullion was continuously being leaked under the transaction structure where the export price of gold bullion was less than the import price at the time of the import, and even if the gold bullion was distributed through various stages of wholesale transactions within a very short period of time from the import to the export price, it seems that the sales price of gold bullion was entirely impossible for the Plaintiff to receive and export gold bullion sales without close cooperative relations. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s sales price at the time of the purchase and sale of gold bullion was lower than the import price at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale of gold bullion, the Plaintiff’s sales price at the time of the purchase and sale of gold bullion was considerably less than the Plaintiff’s sales price at the time of the purchase and sale of gold bullion in this case, and it appears that it was more difficult for the Plaintiff to receive and sell gold bullion.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserted that the tax invoice of this case was a tax invoice consistent with the facts since it is clear that the gold bullion was delivered from the purchaser in relation to the tax invoice of this case, and that it was exported normally with goods transport certificates, export declaration certificates, transportation securities, etc. at each time of exportation. However, the above transaction method is not a structure that can not be deemed as losses if the payment of the tax was based on the premise of the payment of the tax from the beginning. As such, it can be seen that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax, which is exempted from the payment by the report of business closure, was the sole source and registration of the transaction that can be presented for the transaction, and in reality, it does not mean that the reduction of tax revenue or the loss of the National Treasury occurs. Thus, even if the tax invoice was issued and delivered in accordance with the formal transaction, and the tax invoice was received and received only for the purpose of refund of the value-added tax, if it was not possible to collect the value-added tax or significantly difficult to collect the value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do465).

(B) Whether the Plaintiff acted in good faith and without fault

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that he did not know and did not know about the prior transactions in relation to the instant tax invoice. However, in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, in order to complete illegal activities by taking advantage of the zero-rate tax system and the value-added tax refund system related to the export and import of gold bullion in order to obtain a refund of value-added tax by deceiving the national treasury through the method of refund by a transaction party subsequent to the export and import of gold bullion, the existence of an exporting company, such as the Plaintiff, while exporting gold bullion, is essential, and as long as the Plaintiff appears to have engaged in a transaction by taking into account the refund of value-added tax without any separate negotiation with the transaction party, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was unaware of such series of gold bullion transactions, and there is no evidence to

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since the tax invoice of this case (1) is prepared by processing without actual transaction, or at least the supplier is prepared differently from actual transaction, and it constitutes a false tax invoice, the defendant's disposition imposing value-added tax on the premise of it is lawful, and the plaintiff's allegation in this part

(2) Imposition of value-added tax on the tax invoice

The Defendant issued a disposition imposing value-added tax by denying the deduction of the relevant input tax amount on the ground that the instant tax invoice received by the Plaintiff during the purchase of gold bullion constitutes a false tax invoice. <2> The instant tax invoice is lawful; ② The instant tax invoice must be proved in detail, including when, to which extent, how gold bullion was imported and traded through a light of distribution fees, how the actual transfer of gold bullion and the settlement of the price were made between the parties involved in the distribution; and also, the Plaintiff’s purchaser and the prior purchaser constituted a large-scale carbon company or a conduit company in the instant tax invoice. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to find that the Plaintiff’s specific transaction process of gold bullion under the instant tax invoice or the Plaintiff’s prior purchaser and its prior purchaser are a large-scale coal company or a conduit company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

As seen above, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant tax invoice-related transactions were conducted on the basis of the false tax invoice, or that the export price of the U.S. gold bullion is lower than the domestic market price or international market price, solely based on the fact that the instant tax invoice-related transactions were conducted on the basis of the false tax invoice, or that the instant tax invoice-related transactions were conducted on the basis of the disguised bid among the enterprises involved in distribution from the import to the export, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(3) The reasonable tax amount of value-added tax

The tax invoice of this case that the Plaintiff reported as input tax amount to be deducted = 9,703,092,297 won = 579,95,49 won + 4,340,270,297 won + 4,485,490,500 won + 4,485,500 won + 297,000 won for 2 years, 2004 + 305,000 won for 2 years, 305,000 won for 2 years, 30,000 won for 2 years, 30,000 won for 2 years, 40,000 won for 2 years, 30,000 won for 2 years, 40,000 won for 2 years, 30,000 won for 2 years, 30,514 won for 2 years, 206, 306,000 won for value-added tax.

(4) Imposition of corporate tax

(A) Tax invoice No. 1 of this case

In light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted as a law text, barring any special circumstance, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that where a business operator is supplied goods or services and fails to receive the evidential documents provided for in any subparagraph of Article 116(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount may be additionally collected. The same does not apply to the case where a business operator receives the evidentiary documents different from the actual amount (in the case of the supply of goods or services, it is apparent that compared with the case where each subparagraph of Article 76(9) of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for additional tax in relation to the issuance or submission of an invoice for the supply

The legislative purpose of Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act is to enhance transparency in the expenditure content of a corporation and induce a counterpart business operator to cultivate tax base, and to impose a duty of bona fide return on the business operator subject to the training of tax base alone is difficult to achieve such legislative purpose. Therefore, it is reasonable to impose sanctions on the corporation receiving goods or services to receive regular expenditure documents and to additionally pay an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the amount not received for the breach of the duty (see Constitutional Court Order 2004HunBa7, Nov. 24, 2005; Order 2006HunBa88, May 31, 2007). In light of the above, the penalty tax under the above provision shall apply to cases where the documents evidencing the expenditure are not received even though the actual transaction was made, and it is not applicable to cases where the act of accepting false and disguised documents without actual transaction, such as the tax invoice in this case. Therefore, the defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax in this case applying the above provisions to the tax invoice in this case is unlawful.

(B) The instant tax invoice.

(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax on the premise that the instant transaction constitutes a disguised transaction, on the ground that it is difficult to view it as a disguised transaction solely on the pretext of the purpose of acquiring profits through the evasion of value-added tax under an implied public offering among the enterprises involved in distribution from revenue to export, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(B) The instant tax invoice.

(2) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax on the premise that the instant transaction constitutes a disguised transaction, on the ground that it is difficult to view it as a disguised transaction solely on the pretext of the purpose of acquiring profits through the evasion of value-added tax under an implied public offering among the enterprises involved in distribution from revenue to export, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the disposition of this case taken by the defendant against the plaintiff, the part exceeding 560,593,990 won of the value-added tax for the first year of 2003, the part exceeding 5,373,967,260 won of the value-added tax for the second year of 2003, the part exceeding 6,118,342,240 won of the value-added tax for the first year of 2004, the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second year of 2004, and the imposition disposition of each corporate tax for the second year of 2003 and 204 must be revoked illegally. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.