Article 10 (Prohibited Tax Invoice)

The mere fact that a series of total transactions from gold bullion import to export have been made for a short period of time, and there is a wide carbon company in the middle transaction stage, etc., it is difficult to view that one of the total transactions is not a nominal transaction, which is not a supply of goods subject to value-added tax.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

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 authority 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, 2001; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001). The issue of whether a specific transaction among a series of transactions constitutes the supply of goods as provided for in the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined based on the consideration of all the circumstances such as the purpose and circumstance of each transaction, ownership of profits, and payment relationship between two parties.

According to the facts and records duly established by the court below, the plaintiff purchased each gold bullion from October 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 from three business operators, including the stock company, etc. (hereinafter "the supplier of this case"), and received all of the gold bullion on the date of purchase (hereinafter "the transaction of this case"), and received 28 tax invoices from the supplier of this case, and received 28 tax invoices from the supplier of this case. The plaintiff exported the gold bullion to the importer of Hong Kong. Examining these facts and records in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff is hard to conclude that all the series of transactions from the date of import and export of the gold bullion were conducted within a short period of time, and the value-added tax invoice was prepared and issued, and the amount of value-added tax was not paid differently from the actual transaction of gold bullion.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the tax invoice of this case constitutes a different tax invoice from the actual transaction of this case on the ground that the transaction of this case was a single transaction included in the entire transaction of this case where the so-called wide coal company was opened. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the supply of goods and other tax invoices different from the actual transaction, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Seoul High Court 2007Nu3105 (2008.02)]

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of Sep. 1, 2005 ("the claim of Sep. 22, 2005" seems to be a clerical error) against the plaintiff of the second period value-added tax of 173,430,330, value-added tax of 203, value-added tax of 527,806,710, value-added tax of 204 for the first period of 2003, corporate tax of 29,349,740, corporate tax of 2003, corporate tax of 126,294,020, corporate tax of 204 for the second period of 204, and disposition of 740,719,960 won for the second period of value-added tax of 204, adjusted to 475,708,164 won, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 2-1-5, evidence No. 3-1 through 5, evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, evidence No. 2-1, 2, and evidence No. 3:

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that has run the precious metal wholesale and retail business and export business from October 20, 2003, including gold bullion (referring to gold bullion with at least 995/100 in the state of raw materials, such as gold bullion and gold bar).

B. The Plaintiff received 28 tax invoices for the purchase of gold bullion amounting to KRW 7,704,443,220 (hereinafter “the instant gold bullion”) from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, from October 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004, on the basis of the tax invoice of this case, exported the instant gold bullion to the importing company “○○○○○○ HOG GGGDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd for the second period of 203, 2004, value-added tax for 2004 and each business year and each business year.

D. However, from November 8, 2004 to July 8, 2005, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office recognized the tax invoice of this case as a "tax invoice different from the fact" and notified the defendant thereof. On September 1, 2005, the defendant issued a disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003 to 173,430,30 won, value-added tax for the first period of 2004 to 527,806,710 won, corporate tax for the business year of 2003 to 29,349,740 won, corporate tax for the second period of 204 to 2004 to 126,294,020 won, and corporate tax for the second period of 204 to 740,719,9674 to 40,7167,750 and 204 to the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disposition of imposition and correction").

E. On November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, and requested a judgment to the National Tax Tribunal, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the said judgment on July 10, 2006.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff actually traded the same content as the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice does not correspond to “illegal tax invoice,” and even if so, the Plaintiff did not know it without negligence. The instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Article 11 (Application of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Article 21 (Determination and Correction of Value-Added Tax Act)

Article 66 (Determination and Correction)

Article 76 (Additional Tax)

Article 116 (Receipt and Safekeeping of Documentary Evidence of Expenditures)

Article 106-3 (Special Taxation of Value-Added Tax on Gold Metals)

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4; (c) Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 8-1 through 9; (d) Eul evidence Nos. 10-1 through 5; (e) Eul evidence Nos. 11-1 through 9; (e) Eul evidence Nos. 12-1 through 8; (e) Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, 13-2, Eul evidence Nos. 14, 15-1, 2, 16-1, 2, 3; (e) evidence Nos. 17; (e) evidence Nos. 18-1, 2, 19-2, 19-1, 23, and 24-1 through 25; and (e) evidence Nos. 27, 29-2, and 3-2:

(1) A general form, etc. of an irregular gold bullion transaction for the purpose of tax evasion

According to Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of exported goods. In addition, according to Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827 of Dec. 30, 2002 and enforced from July 1, 2003), the goods supplied by a business operator through a purchase confirmation also are included in the "exported goods", and gold bullion is not an exception. Thus, the gold metal business operator may be subject to the zero-rate tax rate even in the case of receiving gold bullion from a gold bullion wholesaler with a purchase confirmation issued by the head of the foreign exchange bank on the basis of the export-related documents. Since the enforcement of the zero-rate tax exemption system from July 1, 2003, some of the gold bullion business entities were widely known in the same manner as the following three gold bullion business entities to evade the value-added tax and to gain unfair profits from the National Treasury (hereinafter referred to as the "gold 3030.

(A) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ‘foreign companies ? ? importer companies ? ? ? ? 2 (Omission) companies ? ? Sheeting companies ? ? floor wholesale companies ? ? export companies ? foreign companies’, and the transaction price is paid in sequence from the exporters to the importing companies. However, among the above distributors, at least a large carbon company from the above distributors to the floor wholesalers are issued tax invoices according to the orders of specific persons or specific companies, and in fact, there are most cases where gold bullion is not traded or transported at each of the above stages.

(B) A company that purchased gold bullion, which is distributed as tax-free gold at the previous stage of its transfer, and sold it as tax-free gold in addition to 10% of the value-added tax, and then closed its business within a short period, thereby making it impossible to collect the value-added tax from national taxes. The amount equivalent to the value-added tax paid by the company that received by the company that received the payment from the company that received the payment from the company that received the payment from the immediately preceding stage of the purchase is successively transferred by the method of deducting the input tax through the tax invoice that the company received from the company that received from the immediately preceding stage of the purchase. Ultimately, the exporter’s refund of the value-added tax is ultimately the ultimate source of profit from the business that the company did not pay. The above profit is either distributed in the form of Magin in each transaction, or distributed it to the domestic company that participated in the business in the business that received the payment from the company that received the payment from the company that received the payment from the company that received the payment from the domestic company.

(C) In order to maximize its profit, a gas supply business shall distribute to the maximum quantity of gold in a short term. In order to prevent disputes between the participating companies that may arise therefrom, ① most of the same former owners (referring to those who prepare for the import and settlement of gold bullion first from the outside of the gas supply network; c) operate both the exporting company and the importing company at the same time; ② the former owners shall place the companies substantially controlled or trusted by themselves in direct transactions with the gas supply company; ③ the former owners shall determine the volume, unit price, and margin of transactions at each stage of transactions; ④ the series of transactions from the importing company to the exporting company is very short time; ⑤ the actual transport of gold bullion immediately with the exporting company, and ④ the transportation of gold bullion is the most characteristic of transportation (limited to the formalities of disguised transaction, even if transportation is conducted at each stage of transactions).

(D) If the head of the competent tax office deems it necessary to preserve the value-added tax as a result of 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 aforementioned method, the security for tax payment was newly established that allows gold bullion wholesalers, etc. to request for the provision of security (Article 106-3(11)). From April 1, 2005, the security for tax payment was enforced since April 1, 2005. Since the year 2004, gold bullion import volume 268 tons, export volume 233 tons, the security for tax payment was reduced to 56 tons in import volume in 205 and export volume 19 tons in export volume.

(2) The details of establishment of the Plaintiff

(A) Park Jin-jin, the representative director of the Plaintiff, graduated from the Economic Department of the United States of America, from around 1988 to around 1990, served in the International Finance Department of ○○ (U.S.) air transportation company from around September 1991 to around 2001. After obtaining a certificate of futures option related to the United States, he worked as a consulting franchise related to securities in the United States. Around 2003, Park Jin-jin, a representative director of the Plaintiff, was in the Republic of Korea and was in the Republic of Korea, and was in the Republic of Korea from around October 203, 2003, and was engaged in the duties of ○○ △△-ice Co.,, Ltd., the Plaintiff Company was actually solely owned by the Plaintiff Company.

(B) A public-private partnership, the mother of Park Jin-jin, is registered as a shareholder of ○ju-ri Co., Ltd., and is engaged in gold bullion trade by establishing ○○ Park-jin Co., Ltd.

(3) Type, etc. of the gold bullion transaction

"(A) The Plaintiff exported the gold bullion of this case to '○○○○, YOIP HG YG DoALD DESD DALDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD in Hong Kong through the transportation company, etc. However, as '○○○○○, YOIP HG HG YG ALD DESDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD' is located in the field market in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, the Plaintiff is a business entity engaging in pawnpo, which makes the business of pawnpo, and refuses to submit specific data related to the transaction or respond to Korean business partners, etc. at the time of visiting the National Tax Service's on-site. (b) The transaction of the gold bullion of this case was all imported from a foreign country and transferred from the importing company to the Plaintiff with tax exemption, and there was no difference between the importing company and the importer and the exporter of this case.

(C) Examining the details of payment related to the transaction of the gold bullion of this case, most of the Plaintiff’s purchase price of the gold bullion of this case, ○○○○○○, YIP HNADDDDDDDDDDDDDddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

(D) On the other hand, the wholesalers converting the gold bullion of this case into the tax-free gold bullion during their distribution are not liable to pay value-added tax by closing their sales after selling the gold bullion of this case 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). The representatives of the above companies have no business experience in the precious metal field, most of them have no family or ownership property, and some parts have no normal judgment ability due to mental illness.

(E) The export price of the instant gold bullion was lower than the import price, and was considerably low compared with the domestic market price (the wholesale price of the gold bullion publicly announced by the Internet or automatic response telephone) and the international market price.

D. Determination

(1) 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 all the 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 easy for the plaintiff who is the taxpayer to present evidence and materials related to the illegality of the defendant's disposition, considering that the tax invoice is not false (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 shall be issued to an entrepreneur who supplies 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 shall be deemed a person who actually provides goods or services to an entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives services, rather than a person who establishes a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives services (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). The other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice shall not be deducted, paid, or refunded the input tax amount, unless there is any special circumstance that the person who actually receives the goods or services was unaware of the fact that the actual supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who received the goods was not negligent in not knowing the fact that the nominal name was not known (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2778, Feb. 27, 2002). 202).

(2) According to the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s sales of gold bullion was widely known at the time of the instant gold bullion trade, i.e., the Plaintiff’s sales of gold bullion, and ○○○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was involved in the precious metal business before establishing the Plaintiff. It appears that the Plaintiff’s mother and Domination were in the position of sufficiently informed of the career and human resources of the gold bullion trade. ② The instant gold bullion was traded through various stages of wholesale business within a very short period of time for export, and part of the gold bullion was imported and exported without any processing. ③ The export price of the instant gold bullion was lower than the import price, and the Plaintiff’s sales of gold bullion was considerably low compared with the Plaintiff’s domestic and international market price. ④ The Plaintiff’s input’s sales of gold bullion was not the same as that of the Plaintiff’s gold bullion supplier at the time of the instant sales transaction.

(3) Therefore, the tax invoice of this case is prepared differently from the actual ones, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff did not know it without negligence. Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is "unlawful tax invoice" cannot be deemed to be erroneous as alleged by the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

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

[Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap36063, Nov. 01, 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 the value-added tax for the second period portion of 2003 against the Plaintiff on September 22, 2005, each disposition that adjusted the amount of KRW 173,430,330, value-added tax for the first period portion of 2004 to KRW 527,806,710, corporate tax for the business year of 2003, KRW 29,349,740, corporate tax for the business year of 2004, KRW 126,294,020, and KRW 740,719,960 for the second period portion of value-added tax for the second period of 204 to KRW 475,708,164 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 1, 2-1, 2-3, 1-1, 2, 3, 2-1, 2-2, and 3, and 3:

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation entity that has run the precious metal wholesale, retail business, export business, etc. from October 20, 2003, such as gold bullion (referring to gold with at least 995/100 in the status of raw materials, such as gold bullion and gold bar).

B. As between October 20, 2003 and December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff received 7,704,443,220 won (hereinafter referred to as “instant tax invoice”) in total from stock companies, stock companies, and (i) the amount of gold bullion equivalent to the total value of 7,704,443,220 won (hereinafter referred to as “the instant gold bullion”) and 28 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant tax invoice”), and exported the instant gold bullion to the importing company (hereinafter referred to as the “Article”) for the said period.

C. Based on the instant tax invoice and the aforementioned export facts, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant each tax base and tax amount of the tax for the second term portion in 2003, the first and second term portion in 2004, and each of the value-added tax for the second term portion in 2003 and the corporate tax for the business year 2003 and 204.

D. However, from November 8, 2004 to July 8, 2005, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service recognized the tax invoice of this case as a "tax invoice different from the facts" and notified the defendant thereof. On September 22, 2005, the defendant issued a disposition to the plaintiff on September 22, 2003 including value-added tax 173,430,30, value-added tax 527,806,710, value-added tax 527,806,740, corporate tax 29,349,740, corporate tax 2004, corporate tax 204, corporate tax 126,294,020, corporate tax 204, corporate tax 204, and 740,719,7406,740,75,7406, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the above disposition to impose tax correction").

E. On November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for adjudication on the same trade as the instant disposition. On July 10, 2006, the Plaintiff dismissed the said request by the Plaintiff.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff actually traded the same content as the instant tax invoice, the instant tax invoice does not correspond to “illegal tax invoice,” and even if so, the Plaintiff did not know it without negligence. The instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged as a whole by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) Eul's evidence 3, 4, Eul's evidence 5-1 through 4; (c) Eul's evidence 6, 7, 8-1 through 9; (d) Eul's evidence 10-1 through 5; (e) Eul's evidence 11-1 through 9; (e) Eul's evidence 12-1 through 8; and (e) Eul's evidence 13-1, 2, Eul's evidence 15-1, 2, Eul's evidence 15-1, 16-1, 2, 17; (e) Eul's evidence 18-1, 2, 19 through 23; and (e) Eul's evidence 25-1 through 15, 25-26-1, 26-2, each of the arguments:

(1) The Plaintiff’s establishment process, etc.

(A) The Plaintiff’s representative director, from around October 198 to around 1990, (a) was in the same department as the (Article) (Article) (Article) (Article) (Article (Article) (Article) (Article (Article) (Article) (Article) (Article) (Article) (Article (Article) (Article) (Article) (Article (Article)) (Article (Article)) (Article (Article) (Article (Article)) (Article (Article)) (Article (Article (Article)) (Article (Article)) (Article (Article)) (Article (Article)) (Article (Article (Article) (Article) (Article (Article) (Article (Article) (Article) (Article (Article) (Article (Article) (Article (Article) (Article) (Article) (Article (Article) (Article) (Article (Article) (Article) (Article

(B) A national of the same kind is registered as a shareholder of the same kind (Article) and is engaged in gold bullion trade by establishing a company for gambling (Article 2(1)).

(2) Type, etc. of the gold bullion transaction

(A) The Plaintiff exported the gold bullion of this case to the same (Article) through the same (Article). However, the “Article” is a company that mainly engages in pawning business as its main business if it is located in the field market that is a prone district of the same (Article) as a company that mainly engages in pawning business. However, even at the time of the on-site visit of its employees, the Plaintiff refused to provide specific data related to the transaction or to respond to the Korean customer, etc.

(B) All transactions with respect to the instant gold bullion are all imported from a foreign country and distributed as a tax-free gold by the importing company, which was converted from the importing company to the Plaintiff, and had a total of 6-8 stages from the importing company up to the Plaintiff. In addition, the date of import and the date of export do not vary to the extent that there is no difference between the date of import and the date of export. In addition, some of the instant gold bullion were imported and exported repeatedly

(C) In light of the details of the payment related to the transaction of the gold bullion in this case, most of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the gold bullion in order to pay the purchase price at all stages, including the import price, in the order of order. The Plaintiff received the export price from the “Article 8(1) and paid the purchase price to its purchaser, the amount, and the amount to be paid to the purchaser. In addition, considering transport evidentiary materials related to the transaction of the gold bullion in this case, the transport evidentiary materials include the transport contents, such as the start-up prior to the arrival of the gold bullion in each transaction stage.

(D) On the other hand, the wholesalers converting the gold bullion of this case into the tax-free gold bullion during the distribution, who 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 to pay value-added tax by closing the business. The representatives of the above companies have no business experience in the precious metal field, most of them do not have family or ownership property, and some parts do not

(E) The export price of the gold bullion of this case was lower than the import price, and was considerably low compared with the domestic market price (the market price of gold bullion publicly notified daily via the Internet or automatic response telephone) and the international market price.

(f) The Plaintiff did not file an application for refund of customs duties under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export with respect to the customs duties paid at the time of the import of the gold bullion at the time of the import of the instant gold bullion.

(G) The Plaintiff was aware of the commencement of the instant investigation, and immediately suspended the export of gold bullion, and thereafter did not export gold bullion thereafter.

(3) A general form of variable transaction for the purpose of tax evasion among gold bullion transactions.

On the other hand, since July 1, 2003, when the "tax-free gold scheme" was implemented in accordance with Article 106-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, some of the gold bullion wholesalers have been used in the same form for the purpose of evading value-added tax and taking unfair profits from the National Treasury by abusing the above system, and the following methods have been used in the same manner in order to abuse "tax-free gold bullion system" before June 30, 2003, and its contents have been widely known in the gold bullion wholesale business around 203.

(A) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of ‘foreign companies ? ? importer companies ? ? ? ? 2 (Omission) companies ? ? Sheeting companies ? ? floor wholesale companies ? ? export companies ? foreign companies’, and the transaction price is paid in sequence from the exporters to the importing companies. However, among the above distributors, at least a large carbon company from the above distributors to the floor wholesalers are issued tax invoices according to the orders of specific persons or specific companies, and in fact, there are most cases where gold bullion is not traded or transported at each of the above stages.

(B) A company that purchased gold bullion, which is distributed as tax-free gold at the previous stage, and sold it as tax-free gold in addition to 10% of the value-added tax to the company that participated in the business, and then closed its business within a short period, thereby making it impossible for the State to collect value-added tax. The amount equivalent to the value-added tax that the company received from the company that received from the company that received from the company that received from the immediately preceding stage of the business is successively transferred through the method of deducting the input tax by using the tax invoice received from the company that received from the company in the immediately preceding stage of the business. Ultimately, after the exporter exported the gold bullion, the portion equivalent to the value-added tax that the company did not pay is the ultimate source of profit from the business that received from the company that received the refund of the value-added tax. The above profit is either distributed in the form of Magin or distributed to the domestic company that participated in the business in the business, or distributed it separately to the foreign company that received the difference between the import price and the export price.

(C) In order to maximize its profit, a gas supply business shall distribute to the maximum quantity of gold in a short term. In order to prevent disputes between the participating companies that may arise therefrom, or accidents such as loss of prices, etc., ① most of the same former owners (referring to those who prepare for the import and settlement of gold bullion first from the outside of the gas supply network; c) shall operate both the exporters and the importers at the same time, ② shall place the former owners in a direct transaction with the gas supply company. ② The former owners shall determine the volume, unit price, and margin of the transaction at each stage of transaction. ④ The former owners shall determine the volume of the transaction at each stage of transaction, ④ The series of transactions from the importer to the exporter is very short time, ④ The actual transport of gold bullion is most directly transported with the exporter (limited to the formal transport of gold bullion, even if the goods are transported every stage of transaction at each stage of transaction).

(4) Reduction of trade volume after implementation of the tax payment security system (Article 106-3(11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act);

The trade volume of gold bullion before and after the implementation of the tax payment security system on April 1, 2005 shall be as follows:

Classification

203. 203

204.

205.

206.

Export volume (metric tons)

165

233

19

45

Import volume (metric tons)

238

268

56

10

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes “unlawful tax invoice” and whether the Plaintiff was unaware of it without negligence

(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 all the 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 the taxpayer who deals with the illegality of the defendant's disposition can present evidence and materials related to the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer dealing with the illegality of the defendant's disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8192, Sept. 26, 1997).

In addition, under Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, an entrepreneur who supplies or receives goods or services, such as a person who delivers or provides services due to a contractual cause, is entitled to receive a tax invoice from the supplier, and the person liable to pay value-added tax is the one who actually supplies or receives the goods or services from the supplier, not from the supplier or the person who establishes a nominal legal relationship with the supplier, but from the supplier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003). Other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice are prohibited from being deducted or refunded unless there is any special circumstance that the supplier was unaware of the fact that the supplier was unaware of the name of the tax invoice, and that the person who received the goods or services was not negligent due to a failure to know the fact that the supplier was not negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du2778, Feb. 27, 200202).

(B) In light of the foregoing facts, the following circumstances may be inferred on the instant case.

1) At the time of the Plaintiff’s instant gold bullion transaction, the breadthed coal business had been widely known to the gold bullion wholesaler, and the Plaintiff’s representative director was engaged in the precious metal business before establishing the Plaintiff Company, and was in the position to fully understand his or her parent-child and the same-child relationship with the Plaintiff, such as his or her involvement in the precious metal and gold bullion transaction.

2) The instant gold bullion was distributed through various stages of wholesalers within a very short period from importation to exportation. Moreover, some of the instant gold bullion were repeatedly imported and exported without any processing.

3) The export price of the instant gold bullion was lower than the import price, and was considerably lower than the domestic market price and international market price.

4) During the distribution process of the gold bullion in this case, the companies showing the same characteristics and behavior as the bombane in the typical bombing business were necessarily involved.

5) The domestic gold bullion wholesale market tax is announced daily, and the gold bullion of this case was not processed or modified domestically. The domestic trade of the gold bullion of this case was conducted within 200 days, but all of the said trade was conducted at different prices, and all of the trade was conducted at different prices, and the participating companies were set a considerable margin.

6) The Plaintiff’s export office is always set to “Article 8(2).” However, the Plaintiff does not present any data on the size of the above export office that has traded large gold bullion for a long time, transaction performance, credit level, etc. In addition, the Plaintiff’s main business is a pawning business entity that is located in the field market that is a prone to the same sector and is engaged in pawning business as its main business. However, the Plaintiff only responded to the fact that the Plaintiff is engaged in gold bullion transactions at the time of the on-site visit of its employees, and refuses to submit specific data related to the transaction or to respond to the customer.

7) While exporting the gold bullion of this case, the Plaintiff renounced enormous profits by failing to apply for the refund of customs duties, and the Plaintiff cannot find a reasonable ground therefor.

8) After implementing the tax payment security system after April 1, 2005, the volume of exports and imports of gold bullion sharply decreased, and the Plaintiff also completely suspended the export of gold bullion immediately with the knowledge of the commencement of the investigation in this case, and if the Plaintiff has been operating the export business normally, there is no reasonable ground to do so.

(C) In light of such various circumstances, the companies that converting the gold bullion of this case into the taxable gold are so-called so-called so-called so-called bombing companies, and the transactions between them and their following companies are the nominal transactions that only issue and deliver tax invoices to convert the tax-free transactions

Since then, the taxable wholesale, which was involved in the transaction of this case, is merely the business operator acquiring the difference between the sales price and the purchase price to be evaded in return for the receipt of the tax invoice after remitting the price received from the plaintiff to the purchaser, and then, it is difficult to view that each sales contract concerning the gold bullion of this case was concluded between them and the plaintiff, and that the corresponding gold bullion was actually made by delivery, such as transfer of ownership and payment of the price. The fact that the plaintiff traded the gold bullion of this case through these business operators is merely for the purpose of undermining the actual transaction, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff knew or could have known such circumstances in the course of the transaction.

D) Therefore, the instant tax invoice was prepared by processing without actual transaction, but at least the supplier was prepared differently from the actual transaction, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was unaware of it without negligence.

(2) Sub-committee

Therefore, there is no error of law as asserted by the plaintiff in the disposition of this case on the premise that the tax invoice of this case is "unlawful tax invoice."

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

○ [Value-Added Tax]

Article 11 (Application of Zero Tax Rate)

(1) zero tax rates shall apply to the supply of goods or services falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Exported goods;

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

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

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 where the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 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 (Settlement and Correction)

(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

【Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7838 of Dec. 31, 205)】

Article 66 (Settlement and Correction)

(2) Where a domestic corporation files a report under Article 60, the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment or the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office shall correct the tax base and amount of corporate tax on the income

1. Where there are errors or omissions in the contents of the report;

Article 76 (Additional Tax)

(5) In case where a corporation (excluding such corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with an entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to receive the evidential documents falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount not received, except for the case where the proviso of

Article 116 (Receipt and Safekeeping of Documentary Evidence of Expenditures)

(2) In cases of paragraph (1), where any corporation receives goods or services from a business operator prescribed by the Presidential Decree and pays the price therefor, it shall receive and keep the evidential documents falling under any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases prescribed by

2. Tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

○ Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7577 of July 13, 2005)

Article 106-3 (Special Taxation of Value-Added Tax on Gold Metals)

(1) The value-added tax shall be exempted not later than June 30, 2005 pursuant to the classification under paragraph (3) for the supply of gold bullion falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereafter referred to as "tax-free gold bullion" in this Article), which is bullion with the form, degree, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "gold bullion"

1. Gold bullion supplied by a wholesaler and refiner of gold bullion prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "gold bullion wholesaler, etc." in this Article) to a gold craftsmen, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "gold craftsmen, etc." in this Article) who have received tax-free recommendation from a person prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as a "person recommending transactions

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

(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 by the relevant entrepreneur 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, but the tax-free gold bullion wholesaler, etc. supplied in refining and supplied by the relevant entrepreneur, and the value-added tax amount borne by the relevant entrepreneur in connection with the purchase

Finally.