Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap7595 ( October 22, 2011)

early 208west 1731 ( December 30, 2010)

The good faith principle shall not apply to the input of gold bullion not via malicious business operators.

The input tax deduction cannot be denied for any portion of gold bullion purchase that has been involved by a malicious business operator or that there is no evidence to acknowledge that it was traded through a malicious business operator in the purchasing place of gold bullion or in the previous stage of purchase, applying the good faith principle to the input tax

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2011Nu29146 Revocation of Disposition of Value-Added Tax, etc.

XX Co., Ltd

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap7595 decided July 22, 2011

July 12, 2012

July 26, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 in 2004 against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2008, which exceeds KRW 000,000, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-third of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 on February 4, 2008 against the plaintiff on February 4, 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as that of the first island except for the following cases, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

O Part 1-3 of the evidence of 5 pages "A 1, 2, 16, 18, 19, 18, 19, 18, and 19, and 1-3 of the witness KimA of the trial."

O No. 9-15 of the 7th page is as follows:

[A] (A) The gold bullion, the purchaser of the instant gold bullion, sold the current gold bullion purchased from the intermediate wholesaler of gold bullion, such as YYju Co., Ltd. from January 2003 to March 2004 as taxation, and paid value-added tax as follows.

From May 3, 2004 to November 11, 2004, the XXD sold gold bullion purchased as tax-free from Co., Ltd. to 000 won, and discontinued its business without reporting and paying KRW 000 as value-added tax.

The right to purchase the gold bullion purchased from the company of △△△ Gad, etc., was sold to the Plaintiff, and it was not revealed whether there was a wide carbon company's involvement in the purchasing place or the pre-stage purchasing place, and whether the gold bullion purchased from the company of the Plaintiff was traded via the company of the wide carbon.

(B) The Plaintiff sold gold bullion purchased from △△D Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff, as an intermediate wholesale that served as an intermediary for the △△D transaction of the instant gold bullion, which is another purchaser of the instant gold bullion, and △△D sold gold bullion purchased from △△D Co., Ltd., a company with a heavy carbon business, and a company with a heavy carbon such as AAA).

O No. 11 below the fifth below is higher than the following:

[2] As to the part purchased from XXD

In order to deny the input tax deduction by applying the principle of good faith in the transaction of gold bullion, it shall be the case where a malicious business operator (exploitant) does not pay the value-added tax collected by him by attempting to evade the value-added tax from the beginning of a series of continuous transactions, and thereafter, an exporter, etc. is aware that such illegal transactions were conducted in the next transaction stage, or without knowing that there was such illegal transactions due to gross negligence. Therefore, even after it is revealed that the transaction was conducted through the malicious business operator, the input tax deduction may be denied by applying the principle of good faith to the exporter, etc. at the subsequent transaction stage, etc., and the tax authority must prove the above point.

However, from January 6, 2004 to January 14, 2004, the gold bullion purchased by the Plaintiff from XXD was traded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. At that time, the gold bullion was purchased and sold as taxation, and the value-added tax was paid accordingly. Since it was about May 2004 after the gold transaction in this case, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion from XXD and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff purchased the gold bullion from the breadth company, and the gold bullion was purchased from the breadth company, and the gold bullion was sold to the Plaintiff. And there is no evidence to acknowledge that the gold bullion was traded through the malicious business operator during the purchase process, or that there was no evidence to prove that the gold bullion was traded through the malicious business operator (the part of the gold bullion purchased from the Plaintiff among the gold bullion in this case cannot be deemed to be unlawful in light of the principle of good faith and good faith, since the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence about the gold bullion in this case.

(3) As to the part purchased from △ice

Of the gold bullion in this case, the Plaintiff’s purchase part of the gold bullion was traded through Cheongju Co., Ltd., a malicious business owner as the purchaser at the pre-sale stage, and the overall purport of the pleadings as seen above. In other words, the Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that, at the time of the gold bullion transaction, the “mination business” had already been conducted in the gold bullion wholesale business, and the Plaintiff had been aware of it through CC juri, and the fact that, within a very short period of time (the substantial part of the gold bullion handled by the Plaintiff seems to have been exported on the date of its import), there was no added value in the process of the gold bullion sales. ③ The export of the gold bullion in this case was an abnormal trade structure for exporting gold bullion at a price lower than the domestic and international market price, and the ultimate source of revenue that the Plaintiff had already been aware of the fact that the gold bullion sales business owner would not be entitled to refund the gold bullion import price at the time of its purchase and sales without any change in the import price of the gold bullion in this case.

(4) Justifiable tax amount

Among the disposition of this case, the part corresponding to gold bullion purchased by the plaintiff from Cheongju is legitimate, and the remainder in excess shall be revoked illegally. Since the legitimate tax amount for gold bullion purchased from Cheongju is KRW 000, as shown in the attached sheet, the part in excess of the disposition of this case shall be revoked.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the imposition of value-added tax on a much amount of money than that of the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff was 000 won of the profit earned from the instant gold bullion transaction, is unfair against equity, but it cannot be said that the imposition of a reasonable amount of tax is contrary to equity, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 000 among the disposition of this case should be revoked. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with its conclusion, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part against which the court of first instance orders revocation shall be revoked and the part exceeding KRW 000 among the disposition of this case shall be revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition.