National High Court Decision 2008J0607 ( October 20, 2008)

Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice concerning the export of gold bullion

It is difficult to view the instant transaction, which is one of the entire transactions related to the instant gold bullion, as the nominal transaction, not the supply of goods subject to value-added tax, solely on the sole basis of the fact that there is a heavy coal business entity.

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

Article 1 (Taxable Objects)

Article 16 (Supply of Goods)

1. On January 1, 2008, the defendant revoked each disposition of the second half-year value-added tax 2,136, 446, 410, the first half-year value-added tax 775, 680, 720, corporate tax 246, 831, 080, and corporate tax 98, 405, and 420 for the business year 2003 and corporate tax 98, 405, and 2004.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On April 13, 1998, the Plaintiff is a corporation established with a 686-12 117 block 14 lot, located at the seat of its principal office, with the purpose of wholesale business for non-ferrous metal, which is established on April 13, 1998.

나. 원고는 2003년 제1기 및 2004년 제2기 부가가치세 신고를 하면서 별지 '이 사건 세금계산서 수취내역' 기재와 같이 2003. 7. 24.부터 2004. 4. 29.까지 사이에 주식회사 ▢▢힐 21(이하 '▢▢힐 21'이라 한다), 주식회사 ■■■골드(이하 '■■■골드'라 한다) 로부터 수취한 공급가액 합계 17，261，825，000원의 금목걸이와 금판(이하 '이 사건 금지 금'이라 한다) 매입세금계산서 10장(이하 '이 사건 세금계산서'라 한다)에 대한 매입세 액을 매출세액에서 공제하여 신고하였다.

C. On January 1, 2008, the Defendant: (a) viewed the instant tax invoice as a tax invoice different from the fact; (b) deducted the input tax amount; (c) revised and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 2,136,446,410 for the second period portion of value-added tax in 2003; (c) KRW 775,680,720 for the 171st portion of value-added tax in 204; and (d) KRW 246,831,080 for the 2003 business year as corporate tax for the 2003 business year; and (d) KRW 98,405,420 for the corporate tax in 204 (hereinafter “instant

(d)A request for a trial to the Tax Tribunal on January 25, 2008 by the plaintiff, on an appeal to the imposition disposition of this case;

However, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on October 20, 208.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(a)the recommendations of the Parties;

(1) The plaintiff's principal

원고는 ▢▢힐 21, ■■■골드로부터 이 사건 금지금을 매입하여 인도받고 그 대금을 지급한 다음 위 회사들로부터 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받아 이 사건 금지금을 홍콩에 있는 회사에 수출하는 등 정상적인 거래를 하였을 뿐이고, 원고가 부가가치세를 부정하게 환급받기 위하여 이른바 '폭탄업체'와 공모하는 등 변칙거래를 한 사실 이 전혀 없으므로, 이 사건 세금계산서가 사실과 다르거나 허위임을 전제로 한 이 사건 부과처분은 위법하다.

(2) Defendant’s principal

The act of the plaintiff's purchase and export of this case and the preparation and issuance of tax invoices following this case does not correspond to the act of supplying goods in order to create the value of the goods such as the ordinary commercial transactions, and it constitutes a form of gift tax act in order to exclude the value-added tax through the public offering with the companies, etc. of so-called bombomb, and it is limited to the fraudulent tax invoice different from the fact of the original tax invoice in this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 1 (Taxable Objects)

Article 16 (Supply of Goods)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) 원고는 별지 '이 사건 세금계산서 수취내역' 기재와 같이 2003. 7. 24.부터 2004. 4. 29.까지 사이에 ▢▢힐 21, ■■■골드로부터 공급가액 합계 17，261，825，000원 상당의 이 사건 금지금을 각 매입하고 이를 인도받은 다음 그 대금 을 모두 지급(이하 '이 사건 거래'라 한다)하였으며, ▢▢힐 21, ■■■골드로부터 이 사건 거래에 따른 이 사건 세금계산서를 교부받았다.

(3) The Plaintiff exported the entire gold bullion to the importing party located in Hong Kong immediately after the purchase thereof.

(4) 이사건거래와관련하여▢▢힐21이이사건금지금을수입하여여러중간도매상을거쳐원고에의하여수출되기까지의일련의전체거래(이하 '이사건전체거래'라한다)의중간단계에서부가가치세가면제되는금지금을매입한다음면세추천받지아니한자에게부가가치세과세대상이되는금지금으로공급하면서세금계산서를작성・교부하고그부가가치세상당액을납부하지않는이른바폭탄업체가존재하고있었다.

(5) Meanwhile, the entire transaction of this case was conducted within a very short period of time after the import of gold bullion to be exported to a company located in Hong Kong through the 6-7-stage transaction process. The transaction of this case was conducted from the purchase of gold bullion to the payment of the price and the export of gold bullion only 1-2 days, and payment was made after the Plaintiff exported gold bullion.

(6) On June 19, 2008, the Plaintiff’s representative director was sentenced not guilty on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove that there was any conspiracy of evidence on the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in relation to the instant gold bullion transaction, and Kim ○, which recommended the Plaintiff to purchase and export gold bullion, the Seoul Central District Court conspired to evade taxes (the so-called “the so-called 's carbon business”), and there was no evidence to prove that there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had been involved in the relevant crime.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Class A, Class B, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 26, item B, 3, and 7, the purport of the entire pleadings

D. Determination

(1) The disposition imposing value-added tax on the instant case is a substitute

Article 1 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods" is "the delivery or transfer of goods to all legal causes", and Article 6 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods is "the delivery or transfer of goods to all legal causes" shall include "the delivery or transfer of goods to a corner with the characteristics of value-added tax as a multi-stage trading tax," "delivery or transfer to a delivery or transfer to another person with the interests gained substantially and with the authority to use or consume the goods," and "the delivery or transfer to a third person with the authority to exercise the right to use or consume the goods" shall include "the delivery or sale to a third person with the interests gained substantially," (referring to the Supreme Court Decision 9Du9247 delivered on March 13, 2001, which is 9Du9247 delivered on March 13, 200).

위 인정사실에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 원고는 2003. 7. 24.부터 2004. 4. 29.까지 사이에 ▢▢힐 21 퉁으로부터 이 사건 금지금을 매입하고 이를 인도 받은 다음 그 대금을 모두 지급하였으며, 이 사건 거래에 따른 각 세금계산서를 각 교부받은 점, 원고는 ▢▢힐 21 퉁으로부터 인도받은 금지금을 모두 홍콩에 있는 회사에 수출한 점 등의 사정 및 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 금지금이 수입되어 수출되기까지 일련의 전체거래가 단기간에 이루어지고, 그 중간 단계에 부가가치세가 면 제되는 금지금을 매입한 다음 면세추천 받지 아니한 자에게 부가가치세 과세대상이 되 는 금지금으로 공급하면서 세금계산서를 작성・교부하고 그 부가가치세 상당액을 납부 하지 않는 이른바 폭탄업체가 존재하고 있는 점 등의 사정만으로는 이 사건 금지금과 관련한 전체거래 중의 하나인 이 사건 거래가 명목상의 거래로서 부가가치세 과세대상 이 되는 '재화의 공급'이 아니라고 보기는 어렵다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of imposing the value-added tax on the case is unlawful because it does not deduct the purchase tax invoice from the actual tax invoice because it is called "the tax invoice different from the actual tax invoice" in the name of title transaction without the supply of the goods.

(2) The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of this case is the same.

As above, it should be seen that this case's transaction is no supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and accordingly, it is more appropriate to consider that this case's transaction is a legal tax invoice in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act at the time of the case's tax invoice, so the defendant's disposition to impose corporate tax for the case that the case's tax invoice is different from the case's tax invoice is invalid.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.