propriety of a disposition denying the zero tax rate under a written purchase approval

It is reasonable to see that gold bullion is not exported at the time of transaction. Thus, a disposition denying the application of zero tax rate under a purchase approval is legitimate.

Article 11 (Application of Value-Added Tax Act)

Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2001 against the plaintiff on July 1, 2003, the first period of 4,187,767,240 won, value-added tax for the first period of 202, the first period of 5,673,429,580 won, and the corporate tax for 542,424,960 won for the business year of 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts cited or added in the following two paragraphs. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. On April 24, 2001, the first instance court's decision No. 5 No. 11 was followed by "No. 11," and "no. 11, and no contact was interrupted with ○○ from April 24, 2001."

B. On the 6th page, the 3rd page " was closed," and the 6th page " was changed to "the ○○, a representative director, was missing."

C. From 6th to 18th of the 15th of the 6th of the 18th of the 18th of the 6th, “the Plaintiff received the money corresponding to the current sales price from the Plaintiff’s bank account (other than KRW 131,637,000,000,000 corresponding to the trading price of January 5, 2001) and again transferred the money to ○○○○○○ Company (the Plaintiff’s sales office claiming to the Plaintiff) by means of Internet remittance. The Plaintiff and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○,00,000,000 KRW 1,185,32,50,000,000,0000,000 won corresponding to the trading price of 1,185,000 won, and the remaining amount is stated as “the customer’s name,” and the Plaintiff and ○○△△,00,00 won, without presenting the source of money in cash.”

D. After the closure of the ○○○ Company, ○○ Company established the Plaintiff Company and ○○ Company, which is engaged in the same business as the ○○ Company after the closure of the ○○ Company, and the gold traders were aware of the fact of evading the value-added tax by using the institutional grants in the gold trading process. At the time of the operation of the Plaintiff Company, ○○ stated that there was a transaction with Nonparty ○○ Company, who evaded the value-added tax at the zero tax rate or at the tax exemption trading stage of gold bullion. Meanwhile, ○○ was registered as the ○○○ Company, the ○○○○ Company, the ○○○○ Company, and the ○○○○ Company, the ○○○ Company, and the ○○○○ Company were employed as the ○○○○○ Company’s senior director, the ○○○ Company, and the ○○○ Company were subject to criminal punishment for the crime of evading the value-added tax upon obtaining a false export trading approval from the Plaintiff Company.

E. On the 7th page, "the representative director and the chief of the business division of the plaintiff" shall be replaced by "the former representative director, ○○ and ○○○" of the plaintiff.

(f) On the 8th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6, "(the plaintiff claimed that he actually sold the purchase price to ○○ Futures Company since he actually deposited it with ○○ ○○ Futures Company, and thus he actually traded it with ○○ ○○ ○○ ”, and accordingly, he did not have any evidence to acknowledge it differently on the basis of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, 2, 37, 38, 43-2, 43-4, 12-1 through 4, 19-1 through 4, 19-4, and 10th 1st 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1.

G. On the 8th page 19, the phrase “○○ Master” added “(the representative was missing, the ○○ Master was not equipped with facilities to process and manufacture the present, and the ○○ Master was notified of the charge of violating the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Act).”

H. On the 17th day following the 10th day of the 17th day of the purchase letter stating that "the plaintiff's letter of approval received from the ○○○ and ○○○○" was "(1) made and exported into gold bullion (INGT) after nine months or after the 11 month period from the date of purchase (No. 21-3 through 78 of the A), and regardless of the amount of the supplied goods, there was an entry of USD 22,000,000 (Evidence No. 21-3,5,6 or 78 of the A), and there was no further entry of the above two months after the date of the purchase at the same price (No. 79-81 of the evidence No. 21-3 of the A), and there was no further entry of the 10th day of the first domestic sales approval letter between the plaintiff and the ○○○○.

I. ○○○○○○○○○’s representative, following the 11th page 7, was ○○○○○, but ○○○ had not been engaged in a gold-related business. ○○○○○○ was currently missing, and ○○○○○ was accused of the omission of value-added tax. Meanwhile, around December 2001, ○○○○○, who visited the Plaintiff’s office, called the Plaintiff Company, supplied the Plaintiff Company’s services and processed them for export, requested the Plaintiff Company to conduct transactions at the present time and conducted transactions. While ○○○ became aware of the fact that ○○○○○ was not equipped with an export contract and purchase approval for export, etc., for the purpose of export, and ○○○○○ made the Plaintiff’s request for transactions at the present site without confirming that ○○○○○’s present vehicle was carrying the products at the present site without confirming that ○○○○’s construction was carrying the products at the present site.

(j) No. 19 of the 13th page, "No. 19 of the 13th page "............ is the person who had been engaged in new ○○ and practical business as the representative director of the plaintiff, and had been now engaged in the transaction through ○○○ and the plaintiff company, and ○○○ recognized that there was a transaction with the so-called "○○" company at the time of operating the plaintiff company, and in particular, ○○ was punished due to the omission of value-added tax at the time of operating the company," and ○○○ has been subject to criminal punishment due to the omission of value-added tax at the time of operating ○○○, and ○○ has a large scale of the transaction. However, even if the object of the transaction in this case is currently the object of the transaction in this case and it is possible to do so, it is reasonable to suggest a defect in the transaction from ○○, etc., without confirming only the purchase approval letter, which sufficiently shows that there was a defect prior to ○○, etc.

7. It is necessary to add "The fact that there is no reasonable ground to purchase the present time through transactions with the Plaintiff, which is an intermediary wholesaler taking charge of expenses, even though the currently purchasing company can purchase the present at present directly from the currently supplying company."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.