Cho High Court Decision 2008west0600 (2008.08)

The burden of proving that the export goods covered by zero-rate tax rate are such goods.

Since the reason that the export goods to which zero-rate tax rate applies belongs belongs belongs to special reasons that affect exceptionally the decision of payment or tax refund, it is reasonable to view that the taxpayer is liable to assert and prove the tax amount.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 202 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2007 is revoked, respectively, of KRW 182,420,010, value-added tax for the first term of 2003, value-added tax for the second term of 36,08,860, and value-added tax for the second term of 203, respectively.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. From February 1, 1998 to March 10, 2007, the Plaintiff, who runs a wholesale business in the mutual name, a mutually beneficial substance, is a mutually beneficial substance, and the sales in the pertinent taxable year were determined as indicated in the following table, and filed a scheduled and final return of value-added tax from February 1, 2002 to February 2, 2003.

B. From August 27, 2007 to October 19, 2007, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation of value-added tax with respect to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff omitted a return on sales falling under the column of “unreported sales” as set forth below for the pertinent taxable year, on November 1, 2007, imposed value-added tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the pertinent taxable year by correcting the tax base for the pertinent taxable year as “amount of corrected sales” under the table below, and correcting the value-added tax as the amount stated in the column of “value-added tax” under the table below (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

The Board dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on September 8, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A, Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Nos. 1, 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's principal

Since the Plaintiff exported the original unit of KRW 1,469,684,846 through the Sypting chain by telephone, facsimile, etc. from the △△△○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “Hddian Sadded”) of his nationality to Eul, the Plaintiff’s disposition of this case otherwise reported is unlawful, as long as the Plaintiff applied the zero-rate tax rate for the export goods at the time of filing a value-added tax return for the pertinent taxable year, and did not report it as sales.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The sales amount of △△△△ based on the Plaintiff’s sales ledger (Evidence A2 and 6) is KRW 99,81,500 for the second term portion in 2002, KRW 181,073,00 for the first term portion in 2003, and KRW 264,614,050 for the second term portion in 203.

(2) On the Industrial Bank passbook in the name of the Plaintiff at ○○○○○○○○○ Bank, the Plaintiff held, from December 16, 2002 to September 9, 2006, the details of deposits made at KRW 64,692,04, more than once in the name of the SHARAM, MOHAMMA, KH AI, HAE, HADID, REAE, REBA, aBA, a royalty, or convention.

(3) Between July 1, 2002 and December 31, 2003, 2003 28 days (from September 7, 2002 to October 5, 2002) stayed in Korea.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap Nos. 2, 5, and 6, and the result of each fact inquiry into the Seoul Immigration Management Office of this Court

C. Determination

Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of exported goods, and Article 24(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the export means shipping domestic goods into foreign countries. Meanwhile, while the tax authority bears the burden of proving the value of supply in imposing the value-added tax, the reason that the export goods to which the zero-rate tax rate applies fall under a special reason that exceptionally affects payment or the determination of refundable tax amount, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the burden of assertion

In this case, in light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s sales of △△△△ Group was recognized as having been sold to △△△△△△ Group, but further, as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s sales to △△△△△ Group was shipped out to △△△△ Group through trading, the Plaintiff was unable to produce at all customs-related documents, such as export declaration certificates, export face-to-export letters, foreign exchange letters, foreign exchange declaration certificates, invoices, and delivery certificates, and if the Plaintiff’s sales to △△△ Group constitute the supply of exported goods, the Plaintiff’s submission of zero tax rate for the supply of the goods from February 2, 2002 to February 2003, and the Plaintiff’s submission of zero zero-year zero tax rate for the supply of the goods was without merit. In light of the above fact that the Plaintiff reported the value-added tax for the above taxable period, the Plaintiff’s submission of zero-year zero tax rate for the supply of the goods to 20 years including the Plaintiff’s submission of the goods.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, so it is judged the same as the order.