Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap2699 ( October 19, 2013)

Value-added tax shall not be allowed in violation of the good faith principle for exporting gold bullion received from a large-scale coal company to be refunded.

If a taxpayer seeks the deduction and refund of an input tax amount of value-added tax with knowledge of, or without knowledge of, the fact that a taxpayer causes the reduction of tax revenue even though it is an illegal transaction of gold bullion corresponding to national outflow, it shall not be permitted in violation of the

2013Nu1168. Revocation of imposition of value-added tax, etc.

AAA, Inc.

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap2699 decided March 19, 2013

November 5, 2013

December 20, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the first term of 2003 against the plaintiff on June 1, 2008 is revoked, respectively, the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the second term of 203, the value-added tax for the second term of 2003, the OOO(including the additional tax), the value-added tax for the first term of 2004, the corporate tax for the business year of 2003, the OOO(204, and the corporate tax for the business year of 204.

2. Purport of appeal

The following part of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

On June 1, 2008, the Defendant revoked each disposition of the value-added tax (this tax) for the first term portion of the year 2003 against the Plaintiff on June 1, 2008, the value-added tax for the second term portion of the year 2003, and the value-added tax for the first term portion of the year 2004 (this tax).

1. A cited part;

The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition to the following 2.3. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The following parts shall be added between conduct 7 and 8 of the first instance judgment:

E. Scope of fraudulent transactions

On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful because the company did not intervene in the entire phase of the transaction of the gold bullion, and that the Defendant accused the Plaintiff against the prosecution in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, that the portion of the supply price of the gold bullion in the transaction price of the instant gold bullion was received by the company as to the OOO of the supply price of the instant gold bullion. As such, the Defendant asserts that the remainder other than the supply price that the Defendant filed is unrelated

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 7, 19, and 8, 9, and 10, the defendant accused the plaintiff as to the part of the supply value of the gold bullion in the transaction value of the instant gold bullion in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, which was reported by the defendant as to the supply value of the gold bullion in the transaction of the instant case. It is recognized that 18 so-called so-called large coal companies, such as BBE,CC ice, and DD, were involved in the transaction of the supply value that the defendant filed for accusation, and that the addition was an illegal transaction that evades tax evasion.

Furthermore, with respect to the difference between the value of supply of gold bullion transactions and the value of supply that the defendant files an accusation, even though the specific width-based company was not specified, in the administrative litigation, the burden of proof is, in principle, distributed between the parties in accordance with the general principles of civil procedure and in the case of appeal litigation, the defendant who claims the legality of the pertinent disposition shall bear the burden of proving the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition. However, if there is a proof of the legitimacy of the pertinent disposition that is reasonably acceptable, the disposition shall be justified, and if there is a proof of the counter-performance that the legality of the pertinent disposition is reasonably acceptable, the contrary assertion and the counter-verification shall return to the plaintiff who is the counter-party (see, e.g.,

However, according to the above, EE, Fjuice, and GG are all enterprises with a close relationship between the purchasing office of the gold bullion of this case and the Plaintiff’s exporting office, or under the influence of new HG, and both companies purchase and sell or export the gold bullion sold by the large-scale coal company to the exporting company through various conduit companies, and new HH sold or export them directly through the above companies with zero-rate or tax exemption, thereby leading in the crime of evading the value-added tax of the large coal company by again purchasing and exporting the gold bullion of this case through taxation. The PEML and RTRC, which the Plaintiff exported the gold bullion of this case, had a low supply price of the gold bullion of this case to new H, which is the operator, to the extent that it will operate the purchase office of this case with the purchase office of this case and the Plaintiff’s export office, and the Plaintiff was liable for the settlement of the price for export goods under the contract concluded with the purchase office of this case. If the Plaintiff did not refund the price of the gold bullion of this case by the scheduled date of purchase.

In light of the above circumstances, the gold bullion transaction in this case is not different from the part against which the defendant filed a complaint. It is recognized that all of the gold bullion transaction in this case is an illegal transaction where a malicious business operator (exploitant) is involved, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of the disposition of this case (the principal tax imposition disposition of value-added tax) shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.