Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap36951 (Law No. 97.02)

Cho High Court Decision 2008west 1808 (No. 18, 2008)

Appropriateness of the assertion that there was a real transaction in relation to the purchase of gold bullion

It is judged that there was an actual transaction in view of the fact that the representative of the customer filed a false tax invoice under the suspicion that he issued a false tax invoice, but the court received the final verdict

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

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 imposition of value-added tax of KRW 151,504,140, 2002 against the plaintiff on February 1, 2008 (the first disposition) and the first disposition of KRW 59,632,880 in 2003 (the second disposition in this case) are revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked, and the part against the plaintiff among the disposition of this case No. 1 shall be revoked, and the part of KRW 411,601,141 among the

1. Scope of the Adjudication

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking revocation of each of the instant dispositions. On February 1, 2008, the first instance court revoked the part exceeding KRW 411,601,141 among the disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 59,632,80, 2003 against the Plaintiff on February 1, 2008, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining claims. The fact that only the Plaintiff appealed to the part of KRW 411,601,141 among the instant disposition and the instant disposition of KRW 2,00, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, this Court decides to decide only the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, that is, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance and the part of KRW 411,601,141 among the Disposition 1 and the Disposition 2

2. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: (a) except for addition of each description of Gap evidence No. 12 through No. 18 (including each number) as evidence for lack of testimony and lack of evidence of the witness A and HanB, the first instance court's reasoning is the same as that of the reasons for the judgment, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the plaintiff purchases this part of this part, and receives all payment of the purchase price and delivery of 4 copies of the

3.In conclusion

Therefore, 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.