Whether a transaction with the zero tax rate is appropriate with prior knowledge of the defect in the purchase approval letter.

Even if there is a conspiracy with related enterprises to evade taxes at the time of the transaction, or there is no conspiracy to do so, it is deemed that at least the transaction was made with the knowledge of the defect in the purchase approval, so the initial disposition is legitimate.

Article 11 (Application of Gift Tax Act)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 4,187,767,240 for the first term of 2001 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 2003, and the imposition of KRW 5,673,429,580 for the first term of 2002, and KRW 542,424,960 for the business year of 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on July 5, 199 for the purpose of the wholesale, retail, and export and import of precious metals and gold bullion, which has its head office ○○○-dong 000 ○○○○○ 0000 (on November 5, 2003, 00-0 4 stories).

B. From January 5, 2001 to March 28, 2001, the Plaintiff received supply value of 24,321,510,000 won from ○△△△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○△△”) and received purchase tax invoices worth KRW 24,65,680,00 in total from the supply value of 334,170,000, and filed a value-added tax return after deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount for the first period of 2001.

C. In addition, from January 2002 to March 2 of the same year, the Plaintiff: (a) sold 2,793 kilograms to 36,143,47,000 won at the present 2,793 kilograms; (b) around January 2002 to ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Co., Ltd”); (c) sold 1,276,231,000 kilograms at the present 103 kilograms to ○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○ Co.”), and (d) presented a written approval for purchase of raw materials (goods) obtained from the head of foreign exchange bank (hereinafter “the written approval for purchase”); and (c) on the ground that the instant transaction constitutes a transaction to which zero tax rate is applied under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Plaintiff did not collect an amount equivalent to the value-added tax thereon.

D. However, on July 1, 2003, the Defendant deducted the input tax amount on the ground that the instant tax invoice is a false purchase tax invoice that is not a real transaction, and imposed KRW 542,424,960 on the Plaintiff for the first quarter of 2001 as a value-added tax, KRW 4,187,767,240, and KRW 542,960 for the first quarter of 2001 as a penalty tax for lack of evidence. ② The instant purchase approval is issued on the basis of a false or serious defect export contract, and it does not constitute an effective purchase approval, and it does not constitute an effective purchase approval, and it did not actually export the current transaction. Accordingly, the Defendant denied the application of zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act for the first quarter of 2002 and imposed KRW 5,673,429,580 for the first

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence No. 1-5

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

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) As the Plaintiff actually purchased the instant tax invoice from ○△△, etc. and received the instant tax invoice, and remitted the purchase price to the bank account of the purchaser company, such as ○○ju, etc., the instant tax invoice is deemed as a genuine tax invoice accompanied by real transactions, but the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2001 and corporate tax for 2001, which was made by deeming it as a false tax invoice, is unlawful.

(B) If the instant purchase approval was lawfully issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank, and the said purchase approval was duly issued, the requirements for applying zero tax rate are met only by itself, and there are no defects in the underlying document of the written purchase approval or whether it was actually exported at the present time, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s transaction of the instant purchase approval cannot be deemed to be excluded from zero-rate tax rate.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) It cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff purchased the real money from ○○ juice, etc. in light of the typical data merchants who discontinue their business after only registering business in form and causing high-amount sales data within a short time after ○○ juice, etc. generated high-amount sales data.

(B) The instant purchase approval cannot be deemed as a lawful purchase approval that was issued on the basis of an export contract with a false or serious defect. Accordingly, the instant transaction based on such a purchase approval does not constitute zero tax rate of value-added tax.

(C) In addition, the Plaintiff was engaged in the instant transaction in collusion with the seller to evade taxes, or the letter of approval for purchase issued from the seller based on false export contract documents, i.e., the instant transaction even with the knowledge that there was a defect in issuing the letter of approval for purchase, and thus, the instant transaction is not subject to zero tax rate.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Whether the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) At the present time of opening business on January 2, 2001 and closing business on April 10, 2001, 00, 000 won was purchased from four enterprises, such as ○○ Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Trade”) during the first taxable period of 2001, and 00 won was at the zero tax rate of 43,146,684,000 won, and 00 won was sold from the supply value of 1,106,667,00 won to three enterprises, including the Plaintiff, and 42,428,409,000 won was sold from the supply value of 1,106,67,000 won. However, the value-added tax was closed without paying KRW 4,131,841,000.

(B) At the time, ○○○○○○, a representative of ○○○○○○-dong 000-100 office, which he had been aware of from his restaurant’s losses, was proposed to leave the representative of the corporation due to tax issues and consented to the proposal, and around that time, the ○○○ established a corporation with the title of ○○○○○○○’s order, but did not know the contents of the export contract and the purchase approval, but did not confirm the actual transport and the third place of business. The place of business is an office of 00 ○○○○-dong 000-100, which was issued with the purchase approval by using a false export contract, etc. as follows, and there was no real transaction at present.

(C) On the other hand, ○○○○○○○○○, an actual offender’s trend) prepared a false export contract and presented a purchase approval, etc. issued using the false export contract to ○○ trade, and then purchased zero tax rates of KRW 44,253,00,000 from ○ trade to March 31, 2001, a total of 63 tax invoices were received from ○○○ Tax Office as if it purchased zero tax rates of KRW 44,253,000,000, in total, and during the same period, the Plaintiff issued sales tax invoices of KRW 24,321,510,000 in total, including the issuance of the sales tax invoices of KRW 20,248,00,000 in total, to enable the customer to deduct the input tax amount unfairly, thereby filing a complaint with the competent authority of ○○ Tax Office.

(D) In addition, ○○ juice purchased a current taxable year equivalent to KRW 32,90,840,000 of the value of supply from ○○ juice during the same period as a trade juristic person, which started its business on November 1, 2000 and closed its business on April 9, 2001, and received a tax invoice as if the Plaintiff et al. received a tax invoice of KRW 46,660,324,000 of the value of supply from 46,660,324,000 for the second period of 200, and then discontinued its business without paying it (the value-added tax for the first period of 2001 does not also submit a tax return).

(E) On July 13, 2002, the director of the ○○○○ Tax Office filed a complaint with the competent authority on the ground that the ○○○○○○○○ Tax Office, a purchasing entity, received a tax invoice of KRW 32,90,840,000 from the data merchants during the first taxable period from 2000 to 201, which was registered as the representative of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on the grounds of the so-called material list. On July 19, 2002, ○○○○○○○ filed a complaint with the competent authority on the ground that the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was a corporation which received and discontinued a tax invoice of KRW 32,990,840,00 without a real transaction, and had the Plaintiff receive the tax invoice of KRW 134,000,00 from the real company without a real transaction price deduction.

(F) At the same time, the Plaintiff purchased ○ Futures Co., Ltd. at the same time, and sold ○○ Futures Co., Ltd. at the same time, and handled that all of its payments were remitted from the sales office and remitted to the purchasing office (the difference is deemed to have been moved from the purchasing office to the sales office without going through the Plaintiff). The materials on transportation at this point are stated as being transported from ○○ juice to the Plaintiff, and the company in charge of transportation received a request for carriage by wire from ○○ juice, but did not confirm who is the client, and did not prepare a written request for carriage.

(G) On July 28, 1998, new ○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, established ○○○ Company, which is engaged in export and import and wholesale business as of July 28, 1998, and, on the ground that purchase tax invoices were false, KRW 2.4 billion increased the value-added tax imposed on the grounds that the purchase tax invoices were false, the actual agent of the transaction closed on May 31, 199, and at that time, the company that issued the purchase invoice was accused of the

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 12, Eul 6 through 26 (including each number), fact-finding with ○○ Korea Co., Ltd., the purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Determination

As seen above, ○○ juice and juice traded with the Plaintiff was established with a nominal representative director and closed the business without paying the value-added tax, etc., as a company which received processed tax invoices without real transactions, and filed an accusation with the competent authority as data. The Plaintiff’s representative director and the head of the business division led or participated in the above or similar change of regulations even before the transaction. The Plaintiff’s payment of the price did not include the Plaintiff’s funds, and this transaction took place at the same time, which is the object of the sale, was transported without the Plaintiff’s legal entity, and this transaction took place at least at the same time. If the purchase and sale took place simultaneously, and this actual transaction takes place, the Plaintiff did not play an intermediary role in the middle transaction, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the first seller’s request for transportation was paid as the first purchaser, and that it did not have any special reason to view that it did not take part in the intermediate supply of value-added tax, as well as in the middle of the transaction.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

D. Whether the letter of approval for purchase in this case is valid

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On December 12, 2001, 2001, ○○○○ is a wholesale corporation, which has opened a business on April 25, 2002 and closed its business on April 25, 2002, purchased the current price of KRW 71,357,00,000 from 6 enterprises such as the Plaintiff, etc. for the first taxable period of 2002, and then sold the current price of KRW 68,829,00,000 to 9 domestic enterprises such as ○○ Korea, etc., with the whole value of KRW 68,880,00,000, without paying the value-added tax.

(B) After receiving a written approval for purchase from the head of the foreign exchange bank, ○○○ and the foreign company, ○○, along with the export contract with the head of the foreign exchange bank, presented a written approval for purchase to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant transaction, but there was no negotiation or contract with the said company regarding the export contract.

(C) The ○○ Company purchased the zero tax rate of KRW 1,707,732,000 from two companies, including the Plaintiff, etc., as an precious wholesale corporation which opened on May 17, 2000 and closed on July 2, 2002, and then sold the whole quantity of the zero-rate purchase to three companies, including ○○ Korea, at the current rate of KRW 1,830,03,00, and did not report the value-added tax.

(D) However, the purchase approval letter presented by ○○ Company to the Plaintiff at the time of the present purchase was issued in excess of the total weight of 3,00 kilograms under the export contract (3,605 kilograms), and the supply period under the export contract was from January 10, 201 to March 10, 2002, and the delivery period under the export contract was to be divided into shipment, but the shipment date under the purchase approval letter was to be March 10, 201, and the shipment date was to be March 10, 2001, and 18 k from processing the net amount under the export contract was to be exported after processing the net amount under the export approval letter, but the purchase approval letter was written as a net amount, and there was any defect in its contents.

[Grounds for recognition] Nos. 7 through 12 (including each number), the purport of the entire pleading

(2) Determination

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, and Article 4-2-7(1) of the Regulations on External Trade Management, a purchase approval is sufficient when the head of a foreign exchange bank issues a document to verify whether the goods purchased by an applicant are raw materials or goods for foreign exchange earnings, on the grounds of an export letter of credit, an export contract, a foreign currency purchase certificate, a local letter of credit, etc., and there is no limitation

According to the above facts, the letter of approval for the purchase of this case, which was presented by the plaintiff to the ○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○, did not meet the required documents under the Foreign Trade Management Regulations, or issued even after attaching false documents.

However, in addition to whether the head of a foreign exchange bank that issued a letter of approval for a defect in the process of issuing the letter of approval can cancel the issuance of the letter of approval, the above letter of approval for purchase cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course on the sole basis of the above defect in the process of issuing the letter of approval. Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the Plaintiff, a supplier of goods, was aware of the defect in issuing the letter of approval for purchase of this case, the supply of this case done under the letter of approval for purchase cannot be immediately excluded from zero tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13735, Jan. 26, 2006).

In addition, since the Value-Added Tax Act does not stipulate the issue of whether the Plaintiff’s supply to the seller is actually exported or not as a requirement for applying zero tax rate, it may not affect the application of zero tax rate for the instant transaction.

E. Whether the instant transaction constitutes a transaction or bad faith by public offering

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) On July 199, the Plaintiff was established with capital of 100 million won by new ○○○, and new ○○ is a person who had been actually operating a trading company such as ○○, etc. prior to the establishment of the Plaintiff Company, and is well aware of the current status of domestic transactions at present. In 2000, ○○ Global Co., Ltd., currently purchased at zero tax rate of 80 kilograms from ○○ Global Co., Ltd., and some of them present a letter of approval for purchase presented from the Plaintiff to the purchaser company at zero tax rate, and some of them presented a letter of approval for purchase, which was issued directly by the Plaintiff without attaching required documents such as an export contract stipulated in the Foreign Trade Regulations

(B) In 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the certificate of division from ○○ Commercial Co., Ltd., ○○○○ Co., Ltd., ○○○○○, ○○ Global Co., Ltd., ○○○○, and ○○ Trade Co., Ltd., but did not have issued the certificate of division while selling the present.

(C) The Plaintiff’s representative director’s new director’s ○ and the head of the business division’s ○○ had led the above transactions. From January 200 to June 200, new ○○ had prepared a false export contract as if it had been processed and exported at the present time and submitted it to the Seoul Western District Court, and purchased the present at zero tax rate with a purchase approval issued, and subsequently evaded the value-added tax by means of taxation sale, etc. on September 20, 2004. It was prosecuted with the Seoul Western District Court on September 20, 2004. The head of ○○○ was serving as the director of the trade in ○○ corporation from April 199 to June 199, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 years, etc. from the Seoul Western District Court on September 7, 2004 to the Seoul Western District Court on November 23, 2005.

[Grounds for recognition] Eul evidence Nos. 12-17, 20, 21, 24, 26

(2) Determination

(A) According to Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, the exported goods shall apply the zero-rate tax rate, and even if an entrepreneur supplies goods through a local letter of credit or a letter of approval for purchase as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to such exported goods. Article 9-2(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that a foreign exchange bank’s written approval for purchase refers to an approval issued by the head

However, under the value-added tax system, the application of zero-rate tax rate is recognized only for exports to prevent double taxation, and is equivalent to the above exports with respect to domestic consumption, only in exceptional and limited cases where the application of zero-rate tax is consistent with the national policy purpose of encouraging foreign exchange earnings to the extent that it does not impair foreign exchange management and the order of collection of value-added tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu409, Dec. 27,

In light of the above purport of applying the zero-rate tax rate and relevant statutes, where (1) a supplier of goods sells goods by applying the zero-rate tax rate with the knowledge of the defect in obtaining a false purchase approval or issuing a purchase approval with the knowledge of the defect in obtaining a false purchase approval, and (2) a buyer’s use of a purchase approval under the intention to evade taxes by selling them in Korea not for the purpose of export is hard in light of transaction practices, and where a supplier of goods fully aware of such fact applies the zero-rate tax based on a lawful purchase approval presented by the buyer, it would undermine the order of collection of value-added tax

(B) Comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged in paragraphs (1) and (1) of the above, the following circumstances may be inferred, and in light of this, even if the Plaintiff conspired to evade taxes with ○○○○, etc., or did not make the instant transaction, it appears that the Plaintiff was aware of the defect in the letter of approval for purchase of the instant case.

① The Plaintiff purchased a zero tax rate at the current rate of zero tax and subsequently re- sold to the selling enterprise at the zero rate, by presenting to the purchasing enterprise, including the ○○ Global Incorporated Company, the defective purchase approval letter, which was issued with the documents required for the export contract stipulated by the Foreign Trade Management Regulations, or accompanied by false documents.

② ○○○○, etc. also appends a false export contract with the Plaintiff in the same manner as the Plaintiff, or presents the Plaintiff a letter of approval for the instant purchase that is defective in issuing procedures, and purchased the instant purchase from the Plaintiff at zero tax rate

(3) The ○○○○ and ○○○ Company purchased zero-rate tax on a short-term basis, without exporting it, and distributed it illegally in the Republic of Korea without exporting it, thereby evading or concealing a large amount of value-added tax in the process of doing so.

④ Since the Plaintiff purchased the customs duty included in the price of 3% from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could have sufficiently known the fact that the Plaintiff would face the situation of exporting 2% through 2.5% of the damages to the Plaintiff if the Plaintiff did not receive the certificate of subdivision. However, the Plaintiff did not issue the certificate of subdivision to the instant seller. It appears to be due to the Plaintiff’s well-known knowledge of the fact that the instant transaction would not be exported to the foreign country through the instant seller, but be distributed in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. on Raw Materials for Export”), Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. on Raw Materials for Export (hereinafter “the Act”), Article 10(2) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. on Raw Materials for Export (referring to the certificate of subdivision issued to the head of the relevant customs office for the first time to certify the amount of customs duty payable on the raw Materials.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since the transaction of this case is not subject to zero tax rate, each disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Corporate Tax Act

Article 76 (Additional Tax)

(5) If a corporation (excluding such corporations as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied with goods or services from an entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with this business and fails to receive the evidential documents as prescribed in any subparagraph of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount, except for the cases subject to the application

Article 116 (Receipt and Safekeeping of Documentary Evidence of Expenditures)

(1) A corporation shall prepare or receive documentary evidence for all business-related transactions for each business year and keep them for 5 years from the date of the expiration of the time limit for report under the provisions of Article 60.

(2) In cases of paragraph (1), where any corporation receives goods or services from a business operator prescribed by the Presidential Decree and pays the price therefor, it shall receive and keep the evidential documents falling under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases prescribed by

1. Credit card sales slip under the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (in case of transactions conducted using things similar to a credit card as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, including the documentary evidence);

2. Tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

3. Invoice under Article 121 of this Act and Article 163 of the Income Tax Act.

(3) Matters necessary for the receipt and keeping of documentary evidence in the application of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 11 (Application of Zero Tax Rate)

(1) zero tax rates shall apply to the supply of goods or services falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Exported goods;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be

Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827 of Dec. 30, 2002)

Article 24 (Scope of Exports)

(1) Exports provided for in Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall be as follows:

1. Shipping domestic goods (including the fishery products collected by Korean vessels) from a foreign country;

2. Where transactions, such as contract and receipt of consideration, are conducted at a domestic place of business, which falls under any of the following items:

(a) Export through relay trade under the Foreign Trade Act;

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

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 Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 299 on January 25, 2003)

(2) The term "purchase confirmations under Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree and Article 26 (1) 2-2 of the Decree means confirmations issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank under Articles 38-2 and 116 (14) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act within 20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods or services belongs, corresponding to a local letter of credit under paragraph (1) and stating the export letters of credit, etc., the number thereof, effective date, shipment date, etc.

General Rules 11-24-9 of the Value-Added Tax Act (goods supplied under a local letter of credit or written confirmation of purchase)

The zero tax rate shall apply to goods supplied under a local letter of credit or a written confirmation of purchase as prescribed by the Foreign Trade Act, regardless of whether such goods are used for the purpose of export after their supply.

Regulations on External Trade Management

Article 4-2 (Applications, etc. for Issuance of Purchase Certificates)

(1) The head of a foreign exchange bank may issue a written confirmation of purchase pursuant to any of the following subparagraphs:

1. An export letter of credit, 2. An export contract, 3. Foreign currency purchase certificate, 4. Local letter of credit, 5. Purchase certificate;

(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;

Gu Regulations on Foreign Trade Management (amended by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy No. 2001-71 of Jun. 26, 2001)

Article 4-2 (Application, etc. for Issuance of Purchase Certificates) (1) The head of a foreign exchange bank may issue a purchase approval pursuant to any of the following subparagraphs:

1. A letter of credit for export;

2. An export contract.

3. A certificate of purchase (deposit) of foreign currency (limited to cases where it is confirmed by the relevant documents that it is the price for foreign exchange earnings).

4. Local letters of credit;

5. Written approval for purchase.

6. Documents proving that it is for the production of goods, etc. provided for obtaining foreign currencies under each subparagraph of Article 34 of the Decree;

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

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

2. One copy of a contract for supply of raw materials or a certificate for sale of goods for foreign exchange earnings;

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

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

Article 9 (Refund of Customs Duties, etc.) (1) The customs collector shall, when any goods are offered for export, etc., refund the customs duties, etc. levied on raw materials for export of such imported goods within 2 years retroactively from the

Article 13 (Fixed Amount Refund Rates Table) (1) The Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service may determine and publicly notify a fixed amount refund rates table for each export goods on the basis of the average refund amount of customs duties, etc. on raw materials for export or average tax payment amount, etc., as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, when it is deemed necessary to simplify the refund procedures for the customs duties, etc. on the export goods

(2) The amount determined pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be refunded as customs duties, etc. payable at the time the raw materials for export required for the production of the goods are imported.

Notice of refund of customs duties, etc. on raw materials for export

Article 1-1-2 (Definition of Terms) The definitions of terms used in this Public Notice shall be as follows:

1. The term "certificate of average amount of tax" means a document certifying the average amount of tax per unit of raw materials for export (hereinafter referred to as "certificate of average amount of tax") by dividing the aggregate of duties, etc. of raw materials for export imported each month by the item number (K 10 units) of the raw materials for export;

2. The term "certificate of tax payment on basic raw materials" means a document attesting the payable amount of the raw materials for export supplied by the local letter of credit, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "certificate of tax payment");

3. The term "division certificate" means an import declaration certificate, a plane certificate, or a certificate of late payment issued in installments (hereinafter referred to as "certificate") to certify the amount of tax payable on the goods imported or purchased in the original condition;

Article 4-3-1 (Persons subject to Issuance of Subdivision) The cases where a decentralization may be issued pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Decree shall be as follows:

1. Where raw materials are transferred in the state of import or purchase of raw materials to an exporter or a producer of export goods or a person who produces interim raw materials to be used in producing export goods;

2. Where all or part of the goods, the flat certificate of which has been issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 4-1-2, are transferred as referred to in subparagraph 1 without manufacturing and processing them;

3. Where a person who has acquired raw materials provided for in Article 4-2-1 (1) transfers them as provided for in subparagraph 1 in the state of purchase;