Whether gold bullion constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact

The key issue is merely a disguised transaction for the evasion of value-added tax, but the tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, but there is no real transaction, so no additional tax may be imposed on lack of evidence under the Corporate Tax Act

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

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is subject to the subsequent order of revocation shall be revoked.

2. The defendant imposed corporate tax of 216,629,160 won on the plaintiff on February 1, 2005 and corporate tax of 7,266,48,990 for the business year 2003, and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 658,081,300 won on the plaintiff on July 4, 2005 and the disposition of imposition of corporate tax of 1,717,07,380 for the business year 2002 shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. 6/7 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The decision of the court of first instance and the defendant on February 1, 2005 ("2.6 February 2005" seems to be erroneous in the purport of the claim) are revoked as to the plaintiff 2nd value added tax of 404,129,066, 830,850, 322 of value added tax of 1st year 2002, value added tax of 26,634,461,606, 2032 of value added tax of 1st year 203 and 21,354, 401, 621, 1st year 204, value added tax of 4,676, 04, 208, 2074, 208, 2074, 2067, 208, 2005, 307, 2064, 2005.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) part concerning the corporate tax of February 4, 199 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the corporate tax of the judgment of the court of first instance (2) is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Determination on part of corporate tax

In relation to the corporate tax of this case, the defendant applies Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6558 of Dec. 31, 2001), and imposes penalty tax for the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the total value of supply due to transactions in each business year (Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act) or 10/100 (Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act).

However, Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 76(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act require a corporation supplied with goods or services to bear additional tax when it fails to receive regular documentary evidence. The purpose of this legislation is to enhance transparency in the expenditure content of a corporation and induce other business operators to cultivate the tax base. Thus, it is difficult to achieve such legislative purpose merely by imposing the duty of faithful return on the other business operators subject to the training of tax base. Thus, the corporation supplied the goods or services must receive the regular expenditure documents and impose a sanction to additionally pay an amount equivalent to the ratio of the amount not received for the breach of the duty (see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ga7, Nov. 24, 2005; Supreme Court Order 2006Hun-Ba88, May 31, 2007). The additional tax pursuant to the above provision should be applied in cases where it is not received documentary evidence despite the actual transaction, and it is reasonable to deem that the act of accepting documentary evidence without the actual transaction as in this case is not applied.

In addition, even though there was an actual transaction among the tax invoices of this case, but the Defendant asserted that the tax invoices of this case were received without actual transaction, the court did not specify which tax invoices were actually traded but cannot specify whether the supplier was the tax invoices prepared differently from the actual transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13527, Apr. 28, 1995).

In the end, the defendant's imposition of the above corporate tax is illegal, which applies the above provision.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax among the claims of this case shall be accepted and the part of the claim for the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax shall be dismissed as without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which seeks the revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified with the conclusion,