Seoul High Court 2009Nu15540 (Law No. 13, 2010)

Suwon District Court 2008Guhap1502 (O April 29, 2009)

Whether a tax invoice different from the fact related to the gold bullion transaction has been received

It is difficult to readily conclude that a nominal transaction is not the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, solely on the basis that the entity has actually been supplied with and processed with dental materials and supplied dental materials to Byung, and that the purchaser purchased the current tax invoice from the Do government company.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

쇠지지지 3000 개은은은은은 3000 아은은은은은이 3000 아은은은은은은 3000 아은아은은은 3000 이 아은은 3000 이 300202685 Value-Added Tax

흰지지300 쇠지지지 3000 흰지지지지鹬 AAAx

쇠지지 300 쇠지지지 3000 지지지지지 3000 지지지지지

4440 decided January 13, 2013, 200 u300 u u3000 u u3000 Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu1540 decided January 13, 2010

쇠은은 이 개은은은 3000 개은은은 3000 개은은이 3000 이 이 3001.2. 10.

44 44 44 44 44 45 44 444 64 44

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods as taxable subject to value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods is a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-stage transaction tax, delivery or transfer under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of causing the transfer of authority to use and consume goods, regardless of the existence of actual profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 201). In such a case, the issue of whether a specific transaction among a series of transactions constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined by considering the purpose and circumstances of each transaction party, the ownership of profits, and the payment relationship between the two parties.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased dental materials from BB Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "B Korea") from December 12, 2003 to February 16, 2004 and paid in full the amount equivalent to 17kg, 258, 586,610 won (hereinafter referred to as "the transaction of this case") around that time. The plaintiff received 7 copies of the tax invoice under the above transaction from BB Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the tax invoice of this case"). The plaintiff received 7 copies of the tax invoice of this case from BB Korea during each taxable period of February 2, 2003 and 1, 2004, and processed them, and supplied dental materials to C, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the tax invoice of this case constitutes "tax invoice received without real transaction."

Examining the facts duly established by the lower court and the various circumstances revealed in the record in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the instant transaction, one of the entire transaction of this case, is not the supply of goods subject to value-added tax as nominal transaction, solely on the ground that: (a) the instant tax invoice purchased the current transaction exempt from value-added tax at the intermediate stage of a series of entire transactions until 17kg is imported and exported; and (b) there is a so-called wide-scale enterprise which does not prepare and deliver a tax invoice and pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax; and (c) BB Korea purchased 17 km as of the instant tax invoice from the date of CC, which is the primary taxation-oriented company.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of the value-added tax of this case was unlawful on the ground that the tax invoice of this case was "tax invoice different from the facts" because the transaction of this case was nominal transaction, and without deducting the input tax amount, it is just in conclusion, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to "tax invoice different

The remaining grounds of appeal are nothing more than misunderstanding the selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Dan 300 Mau300 Mau 3000 Mau Mau3000 Mau3000

Justices Yinu300 Mau300 Mau3000 Dol-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-

Justices Yinu300 Mau300 Mau3000 Dol-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-am.

Dan 300 Ma300 Ma3000 Mau300 Man Mau3000 Don Dol3300 Dol-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is-is