A disposition that deducts input tax amount by deeming it as a false tax invoice (a prohibited amount)

It can be seen that gold bullion was a type of external transactions, such as delivery of gold bullion between the purchaser and the purchaser, and payment of the price, etc., and it was for the purpose of disguised actual transactions, which constitutes a false tax invoice.

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of December 10, 2005 7,98,898,960 won for the second period of 2003 against the plaintiff, value-added tax for the first period of 2004 11,173,341,920 won for the first period of 204, value-added tax for the second period of 2004 1,57,262,850 won for the second period of 204, and each disposition of refusal to refund value-added tax for the second period of 204 8,99,782,398 won for the second period of

1. Details of the imposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that was established on June 20, 2003 and engaged in the trade business and gold bullion wholesale business (referring to the gold in the state of raw materials, such as gold bullion, gold bullion, etc., the net level of which is at least 95/1,000 in this case).

B. During the period from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff exported gold bullion amounting to KRW 179,840,65,000,00 in total, from 15 gold bullion wholesalers, including ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○○○”) to KRW 179,840,656,260 (hereinafter “the purchase tax invoice of this case”). Dur the same period, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the purchase of gold bullion amounting to KRW 160 (hereinafter “the purchase tax invoice of this case”); and during the same period, the Plaintiff exported gold bullion amounting to KRW 173,645,00,00 in total, the export price of the gold bullion located in Hong Kong (hereinafter “○○○○○○”).

C. During the period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, the Plaintiff issued 16 copies of tax invoice on the sales of gold bullion amounting to KRW 9,101,01,017,000 (hereinafter “domestic sales of this case”) to six domestic gold bullion wholesalers, including ○○ precious Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ precious Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “the instant gold bullion”). The Plaintiff issued 16 copies of tax invoice on the sales of gold bullion amounting to KRW 9,101,01,00 (hereinafter “the instant domestic sales”). The gold bullion subject to the purchase tax invoice and sales tax invoice of this case was the subject of “the instant gold bullion”).

D. Based on the purchase tax invoice, sales tax invoice, and the above export facts, the Plaintiff filed each return on the tax base, tax amount, and tax amount of each value-added tax on the second period of 2003, 2004, and 204, and value-added tax on the August, 2004, 2,89, 782, and 398 won, respectively, to the Defendant.

E. However, from October 7, 2004 to August 23, 2005, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office recognized the purchase tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the purchase tax invoice of this case was issued without real transaction.

F. Based on the results of the instant investigation, on December 10, 2005, the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff the value-added tax of KRW 7,998,898,960 for the second term of 2003, value-added tax of KRW 11,173,341,920 for the first term of 204, value-added tax of KRW 1,57,262,850 for the second term of 204, and refused to refund KRW 2,89,782,398 for the September 204 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

G. On December 28, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on December 28, 2005, but was dismissed on May 10, 2006.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, and Eul evidence 1-3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As indicated in the purchase tax invoice of this case, the assertion that the purchase transaction was actually conducted.

The Plaintiff: (a) borrowed operating funds necessary for the instant gold bullion transaction in a normal manner; (b) purchased gold bullion from the instant purchasing trader; and (c) paid the purchase price and value-added tax normally; and (d) purchased actual goods exported to the instant gold bullion ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (○○○○○○○○○○○) located in the Hong Kong through normal routes; and (b) sold part of them to the domestic company. The Plaintiff’s export price is based on international market prices; (c) the Plaintiff’s sales price is based on international market prices; (d) the Plaintiff was not directly aware of the breadth company involved in the distribution of the instant gold bullion; and (e) it is impossible for the Plaintiff to compete with all other companies involved in the distribution of the instant gold bullion; and (e) the transaction of gold bullion wholesalers traded with the Plaintiff is not recognized as a processing transaction. In light of the fact that the purchase tax invoice submitted by the Defendant alone is a different

(2) The allegation that the purchase tax invoice of this case cannot be deemed to be a false tax invoice, even though it was involved in the act of tax evasion in collusion with the relevant company.

Even if the exporter of gold bullion purchased and exported gold bullion distributed prior to the purchase, and received the refund of the value-added tax in accordance with the purchase, it cannot be deemed that the exporter's refund of value-added tax itself constitutes an act falling under the refund of taxes due to the "Fraud and other unlawful acts" as provided by Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Thus, even if the Plaintiff is found to have a certain extent of the circumstances where the Plaintiff conspired with the Plaintiff, it cannot be concluded that the purchase tax invoice of this case issued and issued by the purchaser of this case is a false tax invoice different from the fact

(3) The assertion that the sales transaction was actually made as indicated in the sales tax invoice of this case

Since the Plaintiff sold actual gold bullion to 6 gold bullion wholesalers, such as ○ precious metals, as indicated in the sales tax invoice of this case, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the sales tax invoice of this case is “processed sales tax invoice issued without real transaction,” is unlawful.

(4) The assertion that the sales of the instant case were not deducted from the output tax amount, while recognizing the sales as the processing sales.

Even if the sales tax invoice issued and issued by the Plaintiff constitutes “processed sales tax invoice issued without real transactions,” the Defendant was not deducted from the output tax amount, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful as it was erroneous in calculating the output tax amount.

(5) The assertion that it violates the principle of good faith.

Therefore, the instant purchase tax invoice constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact, and there is no evidence to regard the instant sales tax invoice as “processed sales tax invoice issued without real transaction.” Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of trust and good faith, the principle of basis taxation, the principle of protection of private property, and the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 7 (Supply of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 11 (Application of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 28, 29, Eul evidence Nos. 34 through 50 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 34 through 50, the purpose of the testimony and whole pleadings of the first instance trial witness Kim ○ and Lee ○.

(1) A general form of gold bullion transaction for the purpose of tax evasion

(A) According to Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the zero-rate tax rate is applied to the supply of exported goods. According to Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply from July 1, 2003), the goods supplied by an entrepreneur through a purchase certificate are also included in the "exported goods", and it is not an exception to gold bullion, so even if the gold metal dealer, etc. received a purchase certificate from the head of foreign exchange bank on the basis of the export-related documents, it can be subject to the zero-rate tax rate applicable to the supply of gold bullion from the gold bullion wholesaler. Moreover, according to Article 106-3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6762, Dec. 11, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 24(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, etc.

(나) 위와 같은 부가가치세 영세율 또는 면세 제도를 악용하여, 금지금을 수입한 후 이를 여러 단계의 도매상을 거쳐 면세로 유통시키다가 이른바 '폭탄업체'(부가가치세 면세로 구입한 금지금을 과세금으로 전환하여, 매입가격보다 낮은 가격으로 매각하면서 매출세금계산서를 발행ㆍ교부하여 거래업체로 하여금 매입세액을 공제받게 하고, 부가가치세를 납부하지 아니하고 도주하는 사업자)에 이르러 과세금으로 전환시키고, 다시 여러 단계의 도매상을 거쳐 과세로 유통시키다가 수출하면서, '폭탄업체'는 거래징수한 부가가치세를 포탈하고, 수출업체는 납부되지도 않은 부가가치세를 환급받는 형태의 이른바 '폭탄영업'이 2003년경부터 서울 ○○구 소재 귀금속업체들 사이에서 만연하였는바, 위아ㅗ 같은 '폭탄영업'의 형태는 다음과 같다.

1) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of “foreign enterprises ? importer ? duty-free wholesale companies ? Tax-free wholesale companies ? Tax-free wholesale companies ? Tax-free wholesale companies ? Tax-free wholesale companies ? ? Export companies ? Foreign enterprises ? The transaction amount is paid in sequence from the export company to the import company . However, in particular, the taxable wholesale companies only issue tax invoices at the order of a specific person, and do not actually trade or transport gold bullion.

2) After purchasing gold bullion as tax-free gold and selling it as a tax-free gold, a business entity evades the value-added tax by withdrawing, concealing, and closing its profit within a short period. "Plastist business" sells gold bullion with the supply price lower than the purchase price. However, the supply price added to the value-added tax is higher than the purchase price, and the value-added tax collected in transactions is not paid. Therefore, the difference between the supply price and the purchase price is expected to be earned.

3) On the other hand, the value-added tax collected by the "large Carbon Business" is successively transferred by each of the companies in the immediately preceding phase through the tax invoices received from the immediately preceding phase companies to deduct the input tax amount. Ultimately, after exporting gold bullion, the exporters are entitled to refund from the State according to the application of zero-rate tax rate. Of the amount refunded by the State, the substantial portion of the value-added tax amount that is not paid by the "large Carbon Business" is the ultimate source of profits derived from the "large Carbon Business". The profit is distributed to the domestic companies involved in the "large Carbon Business" in the form of magin, or the amount calculated by the specified ratio out of the profits of the "large Carbon Business" is separately paid to the participating companies, and the difference between the import price and the export price (the export price is lower than the import price if the export price is lower than the import price based on the domestic companies) is distributed in the form of the so-called Maginin, which is separately paid to the participating companies.

4) In order to maximize profits, a "large amount of gold bullion business" shall be distributed to the maximum extent possible within a short period of time. ① In order to prevent disputes or incidents such as loss of prices among the participating companies that may arise therefrom, most of the same former owners (referring to a person who prepares for the import fund of gold bullion from the outside of the wide carbon business network) shall be placed at the same time with the exporting company and the importing company, ② the former owners shall be placed in direct transactions with the "large-scale enterprise". ③ The former owners shall determine the volume of the transaction, unit price, and mast in substance at each stage of transaction, ④ the series of transactions from the importing company to the exporting company shall be made at a very short time, and ④ The actual transactions from the importing company to the exporting company shall be immediately transported to the exporting company, and even if they are transported each stage of transaction, they shall not be a formal carriage for a normal transaction.

(C) The security system (Article 106-3(11)) was enforced on April 1, 2005, where the head of the competent tax office deems it necessary to preserve the value-added tax due to the amendment of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act by Act No. 7322 on December 31, 2004 in order to prevent tax evasion by the said method as above, and where the head of competent tax office deems it necessary to preserve the value-added tax, the security system that allows gold bullion wholesalers, etc. to request

However, in 2004, the gold bullion import amount was 268 tons, export amount was 233 tons, but gold bullion import amount was 56 tons in 2006 and 19 tons in export volume was rapidly reduced in 2006 when the tax payment security system was implemented.

(2) The details of establishment of the Plaintiff

(A) On June 20, 2003, the Plaintiff moved its head office to the head office around June 30, 2005, as a company with the capital of KRW 50 million, which was established at ○○○-3 ○○○○ building 902, Seoul, ○○-dong, and its head office around June 30, 2005.

(B) The Plaintiff’s representative director, from 1987 to 2003, had been working in ○ Metal Co., Ltd. for gold bullion-related business, and had maintained a considerable amount of relationship with the Plaintiff, even before operating the Plaintiff.

(3) Specific details of the instant gold bullion transaction

(A) The Plaintiff’s purchase and transaction office of the gold bullion of this case classified the tax invoices received by the Plaintiff from 15 companies, including ○○ Gad, for each taxable period, as follows.

(1) Details of receipt of the purchase tax invoice by the Plaintiff

(unit: Won and value of supply)

Gu Sector

Details of receipt by taxable period;

2 2003

1, 2004

2, 2004

Total

○ Madrid

905,59,800

905,59,800

○ Of gold

7,605,450,000

780,000,000

8,385,450,000

○ Materns

712,000,000

712,000,000

○ precious metal

5,441,400,000

1,445,300,000

6,886,700,000

○ Materns

573,332,200

573,333,200

○ Periodicals

1,645,786,66

718,080,000

2,363,866,66

○ Golds

13,263,441,000

5,234,920,000

18,498,361,000

○ Domind

3,898,720,000

35,181,270,000

69,079,990,000

○ Ma regular death

2,948,540,000

2,948,540,000

○○○○ Korea

28,483,004,000

5,921,600,000

34,404,604,000

○○○ Commercial

23,254,235,000

23,254,235,000

○ ○ Plus

9,747,700,000

9,747,700,000

○Korea-Alley

44,810,000

871,200,000

1,316,010,000

○○ Ested

300,266,600

300,266,600

○○ Annburb

64,000,000

64,000,000

guidance.

62,872,940,866

87,327,880,400

29,639,836,000

179,840,656,266

(B) The Plaintiff’s sales office of the gold bullion of this case is six business entities, such as ○ precious metal, and if the Plaintiff classifys the tax invoices issued to them for each excess period, it is as follows:

Table 2. Details of issuance of the Plaintiff’s sales tax invoice

(unit: Won and value of supply)

Gu Sector

Details of receipt by taxable period;

2 2003

1, 2004

2, 2004

Total

○ precious metal

1,440,000,000

1,440,000,000

○ Cash:

1,322,390,000

1,322,390,000

○○ Korea

593,080,000

593,080,000

○ Materns

1,325,320,000

1,325,320,000

○○○ S.

2,045,373,000

722,304,00

2,767,677,000

○○ Ested

1,652,550,000

1,652,550,000

guidance.

2,045,373,000

7,055,644,000

0

9,101,017,000

(C) The representative director or actual operator of the Plaintiff’s major purchase and trade office, and the major sales office of the Plaintiff’s major sales office is subject to criminal punishment for committing a crime of evading a large amount of value-added tax by using gold bullion transactions through a bom

1) On January 2, 2008, 000, 000 won was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for five years and a fine of 150 billion won (207Gahap792) for the criminal facts that ○○○ Gun was actually operated by a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “○○ ○○”) and 45 wide-scale coal companies, such as ○ ○ ○○ Dog, and was sentenced to a judgment of dismissal of appeal on June 20, 2008 (Article 2008No194).

2) The Seoul High Court sentenced 8 years of July 24, 2008 to a fine of KRW 170 billion and fine of KRW 170 billion on the ground of the criminal fact that ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) was a pro-friendly son of the representative director of the ○○ Fund Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Fund”) committed a gold bullion transaction through a gold metal business entity, which was sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment and fine of KRW 2008No385.

3) On May 2, 2008, Lee Won-won who actually runs ○ precious metal was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and fines of 37.5 billion won for committing a crime that "the value-added tax was evaded in collusion with many actual operators of a large number of wide coal companies, such as ○○○○, etc." (Seoul High Court Decision 2007No245-1).

4) On August 14, 2008, the principal who actually operates a stock company (hereinafter referred to as “○○ gold”) was sentenced to the suspension of execution of 4 years and 15 billion won (hereinafter referred to as “208 Gohap374”) by committing the crime of evading value-added tax of 14,107,996,838 won by using gold bullion transactions through a bomb coal company.

5) On January 12, 2007, ○○○○○ Co., Ltd. was sentenced to imprisonment of four years and fine of 245,800,000,000 won for a crime of evading the value-added tax by using gold bullion transactions through a bomist company (merger 2006 Gohap1073, 1073, 1096, 1141). The appeal was filed against the Seoul High Court on April 26, 2007, but the appeal was dismissed on April 26, 2007 (Supreme Court Decision 2007No274). The judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

6) On December 6, 2007, the representative director and the representative director of a stock company (hereinafter referred to as "○○ paid amount") were sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment and 210 billion won of fine (2006No2975, 2007No1924 (merger)) for the criminal facts that the Seoul High Court evaded a large amount of value-added tax by using gold bullion transactions through the wide carbon company (hereinafter referred to as "the Seoul High Court") and filed an appeal with the Supreme Court against this, but the appeal was dismissed on April 24, 2008.

7) On October 10, 2008, the representative director of ○○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. was sentenced to a suspended sentence of five years and a fine of 20 billion won for three years (2008 Gohap571) on the grounds of the crime that he evaded the value-added tax of about 10.1 billion won by using gold bullion transactions through a heavy coal firm at the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”).

(D) On June 15, 2004, the Plaintiff’s representative director changed from 004 to 2005, as a member of “○○ Love,” a gold bullion business operator located in ○○○-gu, Seoul, who is a golf club, attended a regular golf meeting every month from 005 to 2005. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and a fine of 30 billion won for a crime of evading a large amount of value-added tax by using gold bullion transaction through a gas business entity (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s principal purchaser”).

(E) The Plaintiff is a small-scale company with capital and 50 million won, which is merely a zero-year company, and the export price to be paid by the Plaintiff does not include value-added tax, while the gold bullion purchase price is paid including value-added tax. Therefore, it is essential to secure the initial operation fund of about 4 billion won for about 45-65 days from the district tax office having jurisdiction over the instant gold bullion transaction until the refund of value-added tax. However, the Plaintiff’s representative director change of the Plaintiff made false statement that 00 billion won borrowed 1 billion won from the actual operator Park Jong-young and borrowed 1 billion won from the actual operator of 00 million won without ability to raise funds. In addition, the Plaintiff borrowed 3.9 billion won from the actual operator of 0 precious metal, while borrowing 1 billion won from the actual operator of 00 billion won, it was impossible for the Seoul regional tax office to investigate the actual operation fund by making a statement that was made in cash and making it impossible for the Seoul regional tax office to do so.

(F) The purchase transaction office of this case purchased the gold bullion of this case through the ○○-type trade, ○○-type trade, ○○-type sales, ○○-type sales, ○○-type sales, ○○-type sales, ○○-type sales, ○○-type sales, ○○-type sales, ○○○○○○○○○c, ○○○○○○○○ Ss, ○○○○○s, ○○○○○○s, ○○○○○○○s, ○○○○○s, ○○○○s, ○○○s, and ○○s through a typical-type carbon business entity, such as ○○-type trade, ○○○-type sales, ○○-type sales, and ○○s (Evidence No. 28).

(G) After the import declaration from Hong Kong was made, the gold bullion transaction in this case was re-exported through a wholesale wholesaler at one to two stages of tax exemption, and subsequently supplied to the Plaintiff, the exporter, through two to three wholesalers, and subsequently re-exporteded to Hong Kong on the date of import or within a very short period of time. For example, on January 8, 2004, the gold bullion imported at Azed on January 8, 2004 among the gold bullion transaction in this case ? ? 1 1 / 1 / 2 1 / 2 / 2 2 / 2 / 2 0 m/ Plaintiff’s taxable wholesale companies located in Hong Kong around the same day, the details of the gold bullion exported to ○○○○○○○○○ (Evidence No. 39) were converted to 100K.

① On January 8, 2004, 2004, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, an importer company, imported gold bullion 100 km from KRW 1,635,116,658, and sold the said gold bullion to ○○ metal company on the same day as tax-free on the same day.

② ○○ Metal Co., Ltd. sold KRW 100 g of the said gold bullion to ○○○○○○ Marc, a company with a heavy carbon, at KRW 1,654,860,000. The first taxable chain Co., Ltd. sold KRW 1,672,00,000 for supply, including value-added tax, KRW 100 g of the said gold bullion (i.e., sales value of KRW 1,520,000,000 for value-added tax) to the first taxable chain Co., Ltd.

③ ○○, Inc., Ltd., sold the said gold bullion 100 g to ○○○, Inc., a secondary taxable chain, the said gold bullion 100 g to the supply price of KRW 1,674,970,000 (sales price of KRW 1,522,700,000) including value-added tax (value of KRW 1,522,700,000).

④ The instant gold bullion Co., Ltd. sold KRW 1,692,570,000 (sales value of KRW 1,538,700,000) to the Plaintiff, including value-added tax, KRW 1,692,570,00,000.

⑤ At the end of January 8, 2004, the Plaintiff exported 1,583,937,514 (USD$1,335,495) from the Republic of Korea to the Hong Kong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, an importer, at a lower price than the annual import price, of KRW 1,583,937,514 (US$1,335,495). However, the Plaintiff received from the Republic of Korea the refund of input tax amount of KRW 153,870,00 from the Republic of Korea to obtain profits of KRW 45,237,514 (export amount of KRW 1,583,937,514), - purchase amount of KRW 1,692,570,00 + refund amount of KRW 153,870,00).

(h) As a result of analyzing the import and export content of gold bullion 100 km (100 gold bullion 100 gold bullion) imported on January 8, 2004 by the Defendant on the basis of the serial number comparison, it appears that the above 1km 9 gold bullion 99 gold bullion from October 10, 203 to April 29, 2004 were repeatedly imported and exported twice through 18 gold bullion (No. 41-2).

(i) According to the export performance statement (Evidence 7) submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of the declaration of value-added tax, the Plaintiff appears to have exported not only at the time of exportation but also at a price lower than international market price.

(j) Meanwhile, gold bullion importers pay customs duties equivalent to 3% of the price of gold bullion at the time of the import of gold bullion, which is included in the transaction price of gold bullion and transferred to the purchaser, and gold bullion exporters are entitled to refund 3% of customs duties paid to the purchaser. However, in order to refund customs duties, a "certificate of subdivision" under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund, etc. of Taxation, etc. on Raw Materials for Export is issued from the purchaser and trader. However, in the instant gold bullion transaction, the parties, including the Plaintiff, did not receive at all a certificate of subdivision necessary for the refund of customs duties, and the Plaintiff, the exporter, did not take procedures necessary for the refund of 3% customs duties.

(k) The Plaintiff immediately purchased the instant gold bullion, and exported the gold bullion amounting to approximately KRW 173,645,00,000 to the Hong Kong ○○○○○○○○○○, located in Hong Kong, and then did not prepare a security device for the payment of the gold bullion for about one year and six months, using the method of payment after one to two days. The Plaintiff paid the purchase price to some of the buyers after the payment of the export price.

(l) The Plaintiff’s representative director’s change of the representative director is charged with evading a large amount of value-added tax by using gold bullion transactions through a bomban company (Seoul Central District Court 2008Dahap311).

D. Determination

(1) Whether the purchase tax invoice of this case constitutes “unlawful tax invoice”

(A) Criteria for determination

In Articles 6 (1), 7 (1) and 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice shall be delivered to an entrepreneur who supplies or receives goods or services, such as a person who delivers or provides services on contractual grounds, etc., and a person who pays value-added tax shall be deemed to be a person who actually trades goods or services with an entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives services, not a person who forms a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives services, and a person who is obligated to pay value-added tax.

C. If an entrepreneur who actually supplies goods or services and a supplier on a tax invoice are different, the tax invoice constitutes a “tax invoice different from the fact” as provided in Article 17(2)1-2 of the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da48930, 48947, Mar. 28, 1997; 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). As such, a supplier of goods or services and a supplier on a tax invoice cannot deduct or refund the input tax amount unless there are special circumstances that the supplier was unaware of the fact that there was no negligence between the supplier and the supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice, and that there was no negligence between the supplier and the supplier on a tax invoice and the supplier on a tax invoice and the supplier on a tax invoice, the person who asserts the input tax amount deduction or refund should prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du22777, Jun. 28, 2002).

(B) Determination on the purchase tax invoice of this case

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정사실에서 나타난 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 원고는 2003. 6. 20. 설립된 자본금 5,000만 원의 회사로서 별다른 자산이 없으며, 대표이사 변○희도 별다른 자금능력이 없음에도 불구하고, ○성금은의 실제 운영자 박○춘, ○○귀금속의 실제 운영자 이○원으로부터 아무런 담보도 없이 20억 원의 초기 운영자금을 전액 현금으로 차입하여 이 사건 금지금 거래를 시작하였을 분 아니라, 그 자금출처에 대하여도 허위진술을 하는 등 이 사건 금지금 거래를 위한 원고의 자금조달 방법 자체가 정상적이라고 보기는 어려운 점, ② 원고의 주요한 매입거래처인 ○제금은, ○○귀금속, ○성금은, ○정금은, ○영금은, ○원골드 등이 관련 형사사건에서 도관업체로 밝혀졌을 뿐 아니라, 위 회사들을 비롯한 이 사건 매입거래처의 이전 단계에는 위 박○춘, 이○원, 이○범, 이○원 등이 폭탄업체로 이용한 ○예물산 등 전형적인 폭탄업체가 개입되어 있었던 점(원고는 이 사건 금지금이 전부 폭탄업체를 거친 것이라고 볼 수 없다고 주장하나, 당시 종로시장에 유통되던 금지금은 대부분이 폭탄업체를 거치는 등으로 변칙적인 거래의 대상이 되었던 점에다가 이 사건 금지금 거래의 내용이나 방법, 원고가 금지금 거래에 관여하게 된 경위, 위 거래에 관여한 업체들의 성격 등을 보태어 보면, 이 사건 금지금은 모두 폭탄업체를 거친 것이었다고 인정된다), ③ 원고의 주요 매입거래처의 대표이사 또는 실제운영자들인 박○춘, 이○원, 이○범, 김○주, 권○엽, 이○원 등이 폭탄업체를 통한 금지금 거래를 이용하여 거액의 부가가치세를 포탈하였다는 범죄사실로 형사처벌을 받았고, 원고의 대표이사 변○희는 '○사랑'으로 골프모임 등을 통하여 이들과 매우 긴밀한 관계를 유지하고 있었던 것으로 보아 변○희도 금지금 거래를 이용한 부가가치세 포탈 수법을 잘 알고 이를 이용하였던 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 이 사건 금지금은 수입에서 수출까지 매우 짧은 기간 내에 여러 단계의 도매업체들을 거쳐 유통되었으나 그 과정에서 부가가치의 창출은 전혀 없었고, 수출가격이 수입가격보다 더 낮아 전체적으로 손해를 보면서 수출을 하는 비정상적인 거래구조였으며, 각 거래당사자가 얻는 수익의 궁극적인 원천은 수출업체가 국가로부터 환급받은 부가가치세 중 폭탄업체가 납부하지 않은 부분이었던 점, ⑤ 이 사건 금지금의 수출가격은 국제시세 및 국내시세와 비교하여도 상당히 저렴하였고, 원고를 포함한 거래 당사자들은 이 사건 금지금을 국내에 유통시킬 경우 훨씬 더 많은 이익을 취득할 수 있었음에도 굳이 여러 단계의 유통과정을 거쳐 수출입을 반복하였는바, 이는 부가가치세 환급을 목적으로 하는 위장거래로 밖에 설명할 수 없는 점, ⑥ 이 사건 금지금과 같이 고도의 환가성을 가진 고가의 물건을 아무런 담보도 없이 외상으로 구입하여 수출하고, 수출대금은 1~2일 후에 지급받는 반면, 일부 매입거래처에 대한 매입대금은 수출대금이 입금된 이후에 지급한다는 것은 원고의 자본금, 설립시기, 자금능력, 원고의 초기 운영자금 확보방법 등에 비추어 일반적인 금지금 대금전제 방법이라고 보기 어려운 점, ⑦ 금지금 수출업체인 원고는 이 사건 매입거래처로부터 '수출용 원재료에 대한 과세 등 환급에 관한 특례법' 소정의 '분할증명서'를 교부받음으로써 이 사건 금지금의 거래로 인한 이득보다 더 큰 3%의 관세를 환급받을 수 있었음에도, 원고를 비롯한 이 사건 금지금 거래 당사자들 전체가 분할증명서를 수수하지도 아니하는 채 거래를 계속한 점 등 제반 사정을 종합하여 보면, 폭탄업체로부터 이 사건 매입거래처까지 사이에서 이루어진 거래는 오로지 영세율 또는 면세거래를 과세거래로 전환하기 위하여 세금계산서만을 발행하여 수수하는 명목상의 거래로 볼 수밖에 없고, 이 사건 매입거래처 역시 단지 원고로부터 많은 대금을 그 전단계 매입처에 송금하여 전달하고 세금꼐산서를 수수한 다음 이러한 개입의 대가로 장차 포탈할 부가가치세액의 일정 부분을 매출가액과 매입가액의 차액이라는 형태로 취득하기 위하여 원고와 이 사건 금지금 거래를 한 것으로 보이므로, 비록 이 사건 매입거래처와 원고 사이에 실제로 금지금이 인도되고 대금이 지급되는 등의 매매거래가 이루어지는 외형을 갖추었다고 하더라도, 이는 실제거래로 위장하기 위한 목적이었다고 볼 수밖에 없다.

Therefore, the tax invoice of this case is a different tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice. Since the plaintiff's representative director changed from 1987 to 2003 works in relation to gold bullion, the plaintiff's business related to gold bullion was well aware of the refund procedure of customs duties related to export and import. However, in the gold bullion transaction of this case, 3% of the customs duty refund procedure was not received or delivered, 00% of the customs duty refund procedure, 00 were not received or delivered to the plaintiff, 8 people's golf group, 8 people's golf group, and 8 people's members, who participated in the golf group, and was friendly with the plaintiff's major purchase and transaction office, and the plaintiff's major purchase and transaction office was friendly with 00,000,000 won, this case's tax invoice of this case's gold bullion and this case's trade could not be accepted. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not know or did not know that the actual supplier and supplier on the tax invoice of this case is different.

(C) As to the assertion that even if the purchase tax invoice of this case was involved in the tax evasion act in collusion with a heavy coal company, it cannot be viewed as a false tax invoice.

Even if the determination of taxes was made normally by issuing and delivering the relevant tax invoice, and submitting the tax base and tax return accordingly, the act of tax evasion constitutes an act of tax evasion as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, since there is no different difference from the failure to report the value-added tax in its substance when comprehensively and comprehensively considered it. Such an act of tax evasion constitutes an act of tax evasion as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act. Such an act of tax evasion results in the lapse of 25 days after the end of each taxable period, or the lapse of 25 days from the date of the business closure (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9546, Feb. 15, 2007).

However, so long as an exporter is punished as tax evasion act itself, even if the exporter purchased and exported gold bullion distributed prior to the transfer of gold bullion through the conduit, and received a refund of value-added tax due to the purchase, it can be recognized as a public law for committing the crime of tax evasion by the exporter in collusion with the exporter, etc., if the exporter committed such act in advance, it cannot be said that the act of refunding value-added tax by the exporter itself constitutes a "Fraud or other unlawful act" under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, separate from the act of tax evasion (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8369, Jan. 10, 2008).

However, even if the purchase transaction office of this case and the plaintiff met the external form of transaction, such as delivery of gold bullion and payment of price, it is merely an act of disguised transaction to receive a certain portion of the value-added tax to be evaded in the future, and it cannot be viewed that gold bullion transaction was conducted in the same manner as the purchase tax invoice of this case. Thus, even if the plaintiff's act of refunding value-added tax does not constitute refund by "Fraud or other unlawful act" under Article 9 (1) of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it cannot be viewed that the purchase tax invoice of this case does not correspond to "unlawful tax invoice". Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

(3) Whether the sales tax invoice of this case constitutes “processed sales tax invoice issued without real transaction”

The following circumstances revealed in the above facts: ① the purchase transaction of this case between the purchaser and the plaintiff is merely a nominal transaction to evade value-added tax by converting the transaction of this case into zero tax rate; ② it is difficult to deem that part of the gold bullion acquired from the plaintiff as a nominal transaction was normally sold to the sales office of this case; ② The sales office of this case was identified as ○○○, as ○○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○, as ○, as ○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○○, as ○, as ○○, as she actually operated in the relevant criminal case; and ③ the Plaintiff’s exchange of gold bullion from the Plaintiff without any particular reason, as she did not constitute the Plaintiff’s sales tax invoice.

(4) As to the assertion that the instant domestic sales amount was not deducted from the output tax amount

The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant sales tax invoice issued and issued with respect to the Plaintiff’s second quarter sales revenue amounting to KRW 2,045,373,00, and KRW 7,055,644,00 for the first quarter sales amounting to KRW 7,000 for the first quarter of 2003 as “processed sales tax invoice issued and issued without real transaction” and disposed of the instant disposition is as seen above. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 1-2, the Defendant can find the fact that the Defendant deducted KRW 2,045,373,00 for the second quarter sales amount in the second quarter of 2003, and KRW 7,05,64,00 for the first quarter sales amount in 204 from each output tax amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is not acceptable.

(5) Whether the instant disposition violates the principle of good faith, etc.

In general, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to the tax authority's acts in tax law relations, the tax authority must issue a public opinion list that is the object of taxpayer trust, and the taxpayer should not be liable to the taxpayer for reliance on the taxpayer's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance of the opinion list, and the taxpayer must act in trust on what is the reliance on the reliance on the reliance on the reliance of the opinion list, and the tax authority's disposition against the misunderstanding of the opinion list should result in a taxpayer's interest or infringement (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du9103, Nov. 26, 2002). In addition, there is no evidence that the Defendant issued a public opinion list that it would not impose value-added tax on the gold bullion transaction. In addition, the purchase tax invoice in this case constitutes a different tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier on the tax invoice, and it constitutes an "processing tax invoice issued without real property transaction." Therefore, the Plaintiff's cannot accept this part of this.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap27861, May 11, 2007]

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax against the Plaintiff on December 10, 2005, of KRW 7,98,898,960 for the second term of 2003, the first term of 2004, the first term of 11,173,341,920 for the second term of 204, the second term of 1,57,262,850 for the second term of 204, and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,89,782,398 for the nine months shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that has run the trade business and gold bullion wholesale business from June 20, 2003 (referring to gold with the net level of at least 995/100 in the status of raw materials, such as gold dud, dud, etc.).

B. During the period from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff received 160 tax invoices on the purchase of gold bullion amounting to KRW 179,840,00,000 in total from 15 gold bullion wholesalers. During the same period, the Plaintiff exported gold bullion amounting to KRW 173,645,00,000 in total of the export price to ○○○○ (○○○ Limited) which is a foreign company located in Hong Kong for the same period. From July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, the Plaintiff issued six gold bullion tax invoices on the total supply price of KRW 9,101,000 in total to six domestic gold bullion wholesalers and issued them (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoices”).

C. Based on the purchase tax invoice, sales tax invoice, and the above export facts, the Plaintiff filed each return on the tax base and amount of value-added tax for the second period of 2003, the first period of 2004, and the second period of 2004, and the amount of value-added tax for the August, 2004, and the amount of refundable tax for KRW 2,89,782,398, respectively.

D. However, from October 7, 2004 to August 23, 2005, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office recognized the purchase tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the purchase tax invoice of this case was issued without real transaction. On December 10, 2005, on the premise of the result of the investigation of this case, the Defendant issued the purchase tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff as a "processed sales tax invoice issued without real transaction." On December 10, 2005, on the premise of the result of the investigation of this case, on December 10, 2005, the Defendant issued the purchase tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff 1,173,341,920 won for the first period of 204, the second period of 2004, the second period of 1,57,262,80 won for 204, and rejected the disposition of this case as the refund of value-added tax for each year 2009,898.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 4, and Eul evidence 1-3, respectively.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as indicated in the purchase tax invoice of this case, actually traded contents, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the purchase tax invoice of this case is “unlawful tax invoice” is unlawful as it violates the principle of no taxation without the law, the principle of good faith, the principle of basis taxation, the principle of protection of private property, and the principle of substantial taxation

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) After graduating from ○ University’s law college, ○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, performed duties related to gold bullion in ○ Metal Co., Ltd. from 1987 to 2003, and had maintained considerable friendship with the Plaintiff’s gold bullion wholesalers since 1987.

(2) The gold bullion on the purchase tax invoice of this case (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "gold bullion of this case") was all imported from a foreign country by an importing company and distributed as a tax-free gold, and all of which were converted from the importing company to the Plaintiff. The above wholesalers' business places are located adjacent to the Plaintiff's business place. All of these wholesalers' business places are located adjacent to the Plaintiff's business place, and all of these stages of transactions were conducted on the date of the import of the gold bullion of this case (ordinaryly within 6 hours after the import) or on the following day. The Plaintiff exported all the gold bullion of this case on the date of its purchase (ordinary purchase within 1 hours after the purchase). The export price of the gold bullion of this case was lower than the import price of the importing company.

(3) Meanwhile, all of the wholesalers who converted the gold bullion of this case into a tax-free gold in the course of its distribution, sold the gold bullion that they purchased at a lower price than the purchase price (However, the amount added to the value-added tax amount, i.e., the value-added tax amount, which is higher than the purchase price), and did not fulfill the liability for value-added tax payment by closing the sales, and all of the above companies were accused of the fact that a considerable number of the previous companies were accused of the

(4) Of the purchase tax invoices of this case, ○○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○,”) which issued 53 (the largest number of the tax invoices issued by a single company among the purchase tax invoices of this case) to the Plaintiff had always confirmed the wholesale price of gold bullion publicly announced by a major domestic gold bullion wholesaler (hereinafter referred to as “○○○,”) through automatic response telephone at least 10:0 a.m. on a daily basis. The three of the purchase tax invoices were identical to the above wholesale price at the time, and the remaining 50 supply prices were lower from 27 to 213 won from the above wholesale price at the time. Moreover, ○○, from November 23, 2003 to January 5, 2004, 160 won per 26:

(5) At all times, the Plaintiff confirmed the quantity, manufacturing company, serial number, etc. of gold bullion and stored the materials on which it was stated.

(6) The only export source of the Plaintiff, ○○○ Libered, the only export source, is a company that engages in transactions, such as re-exporting the gold bullion imported from Korea to Korea, and a considerable of the gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff, which was re-exported into the domestic import company after 3 to 7 days.

(7) On the other hand, since July 1, 2003, when 'the tax-free gold bullion system' was implemented under Article 106-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, some of ○○ gold bullion wholesalers have been used in the same form to evade value-added tax by abusing the above system and to gain unjust profits from the National Treasury, and have already been widely known in the gold bullion wholesale business around 2003, as follows:

(1) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ‘foreign companies ? ? importer companies ? ? ? ? second (defluence) companies ? ? floor wholesale companies ? ? export companies ? foreign companies’, and the transaction price is paid in sequence from the exporters to the importers in the reverse direction, but at least a large number of distributors from the above distributors to the floor wholesalers are issued tax invoices in the order of a specific person or a specific company, and in fact, they do not trade or transport gold bullion.

(2) A heavy coal business entity: (a) purchased gold bullion that were distributed as tax-free gold at the previous stage of its transfer and sold the amount equivalent to the value-added tax equivalent to 10% thereof to the ccushion business; and (b) closed its business within the short period, thereby making it impossible for the State to collect the value-added tax; and (c) subsequently, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax paid by the ccushion business entity from the ccushion business entity is successively transferred to each other by means of deducting the input tax by using the tax invoice issued by each company in the immediately preceding stage; and (d) ultimately, after the exporter exported the gold bullion, the amount equivalent to the value-added tax refunded by the State through applying the zero-rate tax rate. The ultimate source of profit is the portion equivalent to the value-added tax paid by the ccushion business entity. The above profit is distributed to the domestic business entity involved in the bomban business in each stage of the transaction, or the amount paid separately by the import price is lower than the import price of the domestic and foreign business entity.

③ 폭탄영업은 그 이익을 극대화하기 위하여 통상 단기간 내에 최대한 많은 물량의 금을 유통시키는 바, 그에 따라 발생할 수 있는 관여업체 사이의 분쟁이나 대금유실 등의 사고를 예방하기 위하여 ㉠ 대부분 동일한 전주(錢主; 폭탄영업망의 외부에서 최초에 금지금의 수입결제대금을 준비하는 자를 일컫는다)가 수출업체와 수입업체를 동시에 운영하고, ㉡ 전주가 자신이 실질적으로 지배하거나 신뢰하는 업체를 폭탄업체와 직접 거래하도록 배치하며, ㉢ 전주가 각 거래단계마다 거래물량, 단가 및 마진 등을 실질적으로 결정하고, ㉣ 수입업체부터 수출업체까지의 일련의 거래가 대부분 하루 이내의 매우 짧은 시간에 이루어지며, ㉤ 금지금 실물이 거래단계를 건너 뛰어 수출업체로 곧바로 운송되는 경우가 대부분인(설령 각 거래단계마다 운송되더라도 이는 정상적인 거래로 위장하기 위한 형식적인 운송에 불과하다) 등의 특징을 가진다.

Each statement of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 3, 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 9, 28, 29, 34-1, 2, 35 of evidence Nos. 36, 1, 2, 37, 38 of evidence Nos. 36, 37, and 38 of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 3, 3, and 4 of the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the whole testimony and arguments of E.O. of E.

D. Determination

(1) Whether the purchase tax invoice of this case constitutes “unlawful tax invoice”

(A) The burden of proving that the tax invoice is false, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, and the defendant must prove that the tax invoice is not accompanied by real transactions on the basis of direct evidence or overall circumstances. If the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by real transactions, it is necessary to prove that it is consistent with his/her own assertion in view of the position in which it is easy to present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer claiming the illegality of the defendant's disposition, who is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

In addition, in Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice is delivered to an entrepreneur who supplies or receives goods or services, such as a person who delivers or provides services due to contractual causes, etc.; and a person liable to pay value-added tax is a person who actually provides goods or services to an entrepreneur who is not a person establishing a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives services, but a person who actually provides goods or services to an entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives services (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). Other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice cannot be deducted or refunded, unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the disguised fact in the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who received the goods or services was not negligent in not knowing the above nominal fact (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jun. 27, 2002).

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing facts, the following circumstances can be inferred in relation to the instant case.

① At the time of the purchase of the instant gold bullion by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was widely known in the industry, and the Plaintiff’s representative director was in a position to fully know the Plaintiff’s career and the job bombing business.

② The Plaintiff’s transfer of all of the instant gold bullion from a foreign country into a taxable gold (the Plaintiff’s conversion of the gold bullion from a foreign country into a taxable gold (the Plaintiff’s “domestic gold market is mix and distributed without being well-known, i.e., normal taxable gold, tax-free gold, tax-free gold converted from a tax-free gold, and so, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the gold bullion was not known to what constitutes it, and even in light of the above assertion, it is very unusual that all of the instant gold bullion constitutes one type).

③ Within a very short period of time from importation to exportation, the instant gold bullion was distributed via a wholesaler located adjacent to one another at a total of six to eight levels, and the export price was lower than the import price.

④ In the distribution process of the gold bullion of this case, the company engaged in the same behavior as a typical bombane in the bombing business.

⑤ The domestic gold bullion wholesale market tax is announced daily, and the domestic gold bullion of this case was completely processed or modified in the Republic of Korea, or only minor modifications were made in the form of fladb, etc. to be made into fladdb, and the domestic trade of the gold bullion of this case was made at a different price even if all of the transactions were conducted on a day or within a different framework, all of which were made at a different price, and the participating companies have a considerable margin in each of them.

6) It is difficult to find reasonable grounds for the sales of gold bullion to the Plaintiff at a price lower than the wholesale price confirmed by the Plaintiff at almost all times by the ○○○○oid that delivered the largest part of the purchase account statement of this case.

7) Although the Plaintiff kept sufficient data to specify the instant gold bullion, the Plaintiff did not specifically reflect the Defendant’s assertion as to the details of distribution of the instant gold bullion by submitting such data, etc.

8. At all times, the Plaintiff’s export place is fixed, and the Defendant submitted materials to the effect that the said export place differs from an ordinarily exported or importer in terms of business place, human composition, business method, etc. (Evidence No. 10). The Plaintiff did not present any materials concerning the size of the export place that has traded a large amount of gold bullion for a long time, transaction performance, credit rating, etc.

9) The purport that a considerable number of the gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff was re-imported to the domestic importer within the short period, and that the Plaintiff himself/herself exported part of the gold bullion (Article 15%) to the price lower than the domestic wholesale market price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da327, Jan. 8, 20

In light of the above legal principles, in the transaction of the gold bullion in this case, as so-called data, the company involved in the transaction between them and the business before and after it is merely a nominal transaction that only issues a tax invoice to convert the transaction into a tax-free transaction. Since then, the company involved in the transaction from the plaintiff to the purchaser, it is not deemed that each sales contract of the gold bullion in this case was concluded between them and the plaintiff, and it was actually made such transaction as transfer of ownership by delivery and payment of the price, and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff knew or could have known such circumstances in the process of the transaction. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff, without any actual purchase tax invoice in this case, was made or prepared differently from the actual transaction.

(2) Judgment on the plaintiff's other assertion

As a result of the investigation of this case, the plaintiff did not reveal the direct evidence of the plaintiff's participation in the business of breadth. ② The plaintiff was not subject to criminal punishment for the suspicion of participation in the business of breadth. ③ The difference between the purchase price and the export price of the gold bullion of this case was not specified by company and date, and the plaintiff's export price was based on international market price, and the plaintiff was not specified once the plaintiff reported and exported the deficit. ④ The plaintiff borrowed and procured operating funds normally, ④ the plaintiff was not only was not aware of the width company directly involved in the distribution of the gold bullion of this case, but also was not able to negotiate with all the distribution companies at the distribution stage. ⑤ Part of the gold bullion of this case was sold in Korea using the sales tax invoice of this case. ② The plaintiff actually traded the contents of the gold bullion of this case as indicated in the sales tax invoice of this case. ② The plaintiff was not recognized as the processing transaction of the gold bullion of this case, and the plaintiff owned the actual gold bullion of this case at the time of exportation, and made the plaintiff keep all sales documents related to the gold bullion.

However, the above individual circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff are ① because of the characteristics of the bomb business conducted by the organized public offering, it is difficult to secure direct evidence for a specific person’s involvement in the bombing business. ② The fact-finding is not necessarily premised on the Plaintiff’s crime; ③ the Plaintiff can sufficiently participate in and gain profits from the bombing business even if it exports gold bullion at a considerable price determined by the Plaintiff in light of international market prices; ④ the fact that the Plaintiff’s fund raising was normal, is merely an objection to the indirect fact supporting the Plaintiff’s involvement in the bombing business, not an objection to the Plaintiff’s involvement in the bombing business; ⑤ there was no need to invite the Plaintiff to participate in the bombing business, ⑤ the fact that part of the gold bullion was sold domestically through the bombing business’s bombing business’s bombing business’s bombing transaction, and it seems that the Plaintiff actually purchased the bombing business’s bombing transaction’s 20.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the disposition of this case which did not deduct or refund the input tax amount corresponding to the purchase price by deeming the purchase tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice is legitimate, and all the plaintiff's assertion that caused the error is groundless.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(2) The provisions concerning the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of income, profit, property, act or transaction.

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The zero tax rates shall apply to the supply of the following goods or services:

1. Exported goods;

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as "paid tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "purchase tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "sales tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(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 excluded

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

Special taxation of value-added tax on gold bullion under Article 106-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7577 of July 13, 2005)

(1) The value-added tax shall be exempted until June 30, 2005 pursuant to the classification under paragraph (3) with respect to the supply of gold bullion falling under the following subparagraphs (hereafter referred to as "tax-free gold bullion" in this Article), which is bullion equipped with the form, degree, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "gold bullion" in this Article):

1. Gold bullion supplied by the wholesalers and refiners of gold bullion prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "gold bullion wholesalers, etc.") to the gold craftsmen, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "gold craftsmen, etc.") after receiving tax-free recommendation from a person prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to

2. Gold bullion supplied or redeemed by the gold bullion wholesalers, etc. and financial institutions prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as "financial institutions") to the financial institutions recommended for tax-free gold bullion trading;

3. Gold metals supplied under the futures trading under the Futures Trading Act: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where any person other than the gold craftsmen, etc. (including the financial institutions) takes over the actual objects of

(2) The value-added tax shall be exempted until June 30, 2005 on the gold bullion imported by the gold craftsmen, etc. and financial institutions after receiving a tax-free import recommendation from the persons prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "the head of the tax

(3) Special cases under the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to the tax-free gold metals under paragraph (1) pursuant to any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a financial institution supplies tax-free gold metals, Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply;

2. Where any entrepreneur other than financial institutions supplies the tax-free gold bullion, the relevant entrepreneur shall be deemed the value-added tax taxable entrepreneur and the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply. In this case, the value-added tax amount borne at the time of purchasing the relevant gold bullion in connection with the supply of the tax-free gold bullion, shall not be deemed the input tax amount eligible for the deduction under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the tax-free gold bullion gold metals manufactured and supplied by the gold bullion refiner and the value-added tax amount borne by the relevant entrepreneur in connection with the purchase of the tax-free