Supreme Court Decision 2008Du21034 ( October 12, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2006Du0216, 207.04.27

Any act of transferring the right to consume goods, regardless of the existence of any profit derived from the supply of goods.

The supply of goods is an act of transferring the authority to consume the goods, regardless of the existence of any profit accrued, and gold bullion transactions are conducted only a day, and it cannot be deemed a nominal transaction without the supply of goods on the ground that it is a single transaction included in the entire transaction of this case opened by the company.

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

1.The decision of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. On June 1, 2005, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 34,550,090 for the second half-year value-added tax for the Plaintiff on June 1, 2004 and the disposition of refusal to refund the input tax amount of KRW 177,255,904 is revoked

3. The total costs of the litigation shall be borne by the defendant.

same as the entry.

1. Circumstances of dispositions of the instant case;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, and exporting and importing precious metals, received tax invoices of 1,765,050,000 won (in this case, gold bullion : gold bullion : 1,765,000 won in total (in the status of raw materials such as gold tamp and tamp, gold tamp. 95/1000 or more) (hereinafter referred to as "each tax invoice of this case") (hereinafter referred to as 1 tax invoice of this case; 2 tax invoices of this case; 300,000 won in order of the transaction date of this case; 40,000 won in value-added tax invoice of this case; 40,000 won in value-added tax and value-added tax 25,00 won in value-added tax invoice of this case, and 50,000 won in value-added tax invoice of this case and 50,000 won in value-added tax invoice of this case.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was issued each of the instant tax invoices after purchasing the actual gold bullion and paying it in full. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that each of the instant tax invoices is a false tax invoice by disguised purchase is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is the same as the entry of the attached statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From around December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2004, among the precious metal companies located at ○○○○○○ by abusing the zero-rate tax or tax exemption system, gold bullion was imported and distributed through various stages of zero-rate tax or tax exemption, and then converted the gold bullion into a taxable amount to a wide-scale carbon business, and then, again, it was exported by a large-scale wholesaler via a variety of stages of wholesale companies, and the exporter did not pay the value-added tax, and the exporter extended the so-called wide-scale carbon business to refund the value-added tax that was not paid by the large-scale coal company.

(2) 원고의 대표자 오AA은 △△대학교 사범대학 체육교육학과를 졸업한 뒤 주식회사 ◆◆◆ 마케팅부, 주식회사 NHN 등에서 근무하였는데, 오AA의 부친 오BB은 ◆◆제강 부사장을 역임한 바 있고 금지금 수입대행업체이자 홍콩 업체 ◇◇◇◇사의 국내 에이전트인 주식회사 ■■■티의 대표자 이CC의 오랜 지인으로, 이CC의 조언을 받아 원고 법인을 설립하였다. 한편 원고 회사의 거래에 관계된 세무사 및 관세사는 주식회사 ■■■티와 동일하다(이하 명칭에서 '주식회사'는 생략한다).

(3) On September 16, 2004, regarding the first tax invoice of this case, the transaction flow, the settlement time, and the unit price are as follows.

"즉, ■■■티는 2004. 9. 15. 홍콩 ◇◇◇◇사에서 금지금 210kg을 수입한 후 자금중개 주식회사에 매도 의뢰하여 ♤♤♤♤이즈와 위 금지금 중 100kg에 대하여 11:44:45에, ☆☆드와는 위 금지금 중 110kg에 대하여 11:31:50에 매매계약 체결이 이루어졌고, 이 사건 제1세금계산서에 기재된 금지금 50kg(이하이 사건 제1금지금'이라 한다)은 ♤♤♤♤이즈가 매입한 위 금지금 100kg의 일부로서 ◇◇◇리아, ★★인, ▽▽▽주얼리, ◁◁골드, □□금은을 거쳐 원고가 매입하여 같은 날 홍콩의 ◇◇◇◇사로 다시 수출하였다.",한편, 이 날 관련업체간 거래대금의 결제는 수출업체인 원고의 대표이사 오AA이 아래 표와 같이 그 직전에 ■■■티 대표이사 이CC로부터 7억 원을 차용하여 당일 오전 11:58 □□금은에 대금을 결제한 이후부터 위에서 본 바와 같이 역순으로 이루어졌다. 이 사건 제1금지금은 수입시부터 ★★인에 이르기까지는 면세금으로 유통되다가 ★★인 이후 원고에 이르기까지 과세금으로 유통된 후 영세율로 수출되었는데, 당초 수입가에 마진이 보태어져 유통되다가 ★★인을 거쳐 과세금으로 전환되는 단계에서 매입가액(g당 15,551원)보다도 낮은 공급가액인 g당 14,613원(부가가치세를 더하면 매입가액보다 높아진다)에 매출이 이루어졌고, 원고는 공급가액 734,650,000원에 부가가치세 73,465,000원을 합친 808,115,000원에 이 사건 제1금지금을 매입하여, 부가가치 세를 감안하지 아니하는 경우 도리어 손해를 보는 가격인 648,185달러(1달러 = 1,145 원, 한화 742,129,517원)에 수출하였다.

(4) The flow of September 20, 2004, relating to the second tax invoice in the instant case, is as follows:

"즉, □□□□시는 2004. 9. 20. S▷▷과 마쓰이 상사로부터 금지금 400kg을 수입한 후, □□□□시는 한국자금중개 주식회사에 매도의뢰하여 ♣♣♣이와 10:27:41 및 10:39:43 2차례에 걸쳐 위 금지금 중 각 100kg씩에 대한 매매계약을 체결하였고, ♤♤♤♤이즈, ◇◇◇리아, ★★인, ▽▽▽주얼리, □□금은을 거쳐 그 중 이 사건 제2세금계산서에 기재된 금지금 70kg(이하이사건 제2금지금'이라 한다)을 원고가 매입하여 같은 날 홍콩의 ◇◇◇◇사로 다시 수출하였다.",한편 이 날 관련업체간 거래대금의 결제 역시 수출업체인 원고의 대표이사 오AA이 아래 표와 같이 ■■■티 대표이사 이CC로부터 9억 원을 차용하여 당일 오전 11:32 □□금은에 대금을 결제한 이후부터 위에서 본 바와 같이 역순으로 이루어졌다.

이 사건 제2금지금 역시 수입시부터 ★★인에 이르기까지는 면세금으로 유통되다가 ★★인 이후 원고에 이르기까지는 과세금으로 유통된 후 영세율로 수출되었는바, 당초 수입가에 마진이 보태어져 유통되다가 ★★인을 거쳐 과세금으로 전환되는 단계에서 매입가액(g당 15,573원)보다도 낮은 공급가액인 g당 14,666원에 매출이 이루어졌고, 원고는 공급가액 1,030,400,000원에 부가가치세 103,040,000원을 합친 1,133,440,000원에 이 사건 제2금지금을 매입하여 910,383.14달러(1달러 = 1,147원, 한화 1,044,209,461원)에 수출하였다.

(5) 한편 위 거래에서 폭탄업체의 역할을 한 ★★인은 국가에 부가가치세를 납부하지 않은 채 사실상 폐업하였고, 관련자들은 모두 잠적하였으며, 또한 국내 금지금 시세 를 공시하는 '골드바닷컴'에 의하면 2004. 9. 16.의 금지금 국내 시세는 g당 14.17달러로서 원고의 수출가격인 g당 12.96달러보다 높으며, 2004. 9. 20의 국내 도매시세 역시 g당 14.20달러로 원고의 수출가격인 g당 13.01달러보다 훨씬 높다.

Evidence A, Evidence A, Evidence A 33 through 58, Evidence B 2 through 21 (including each of its lot numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) 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 shall be 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 rights 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, 201; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001; 200.1) In such a case, the issue of whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined on the grounds that there is no specific transaction under Article 26(1)2)2 of the Value-Added Tax Act.

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the gold bullion was actually distributed from the importer to the exporter. The Plaintiff purchased each of the gold bullion from the supplier of this case on the date of purchase and paid the price in full, and then received two tax invoices from the supplier of this case on the date of purchase, and can be seen as exporting the gold bullion in Hong Kong on the date of purchase. As long as all of the series of transactions up to the date of import and export of the gold bullion in this case were conducted within a short period of time until the gold bullion was imported and exported from the supplier of this case. Since the gold bullion exempted from value-added tax at the interim stage is supplied as gold bullion to the purchaser of this case and then did not prepare and deliver the tax invoice and pay the amount equivalent to value-added tax, there is a so-called wide-scale carbon company which does not pay the amount of value-added tax, and the Plaintiff’s representative director borrowed the gold bullion from the aboveCC, it is difficult to conclude that the transaction in this case is a transaction that only issued the tax invoice and actually paid the gold bullion under the name of value-added tax transaction.

(2) In light of the transaction process and transaction price of the instant gold bullion, the Defendant asserted that the value-added tax at the time of the instant gold bullion transaction was formally divided into the supply value and value-added tax, and in this sense, the instant tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact. However, the circumstances and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone are insufficient to deem the supply value and value-added tax on the instant tax invoice as false, and the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(3) Therefore, under the premise that the instant tax invoice constitutes “unlawfully different tax invoices,” the instant disposition, which was conducted without deducting the input tax amount on the instant tax invoice, shall be deemed unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the ground of its reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, so it is revoked, and it is decided to accept the plaintiff's appeal and to revoke the disposition of this case, and it is decided to