Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap5424 ( November 06, 2007)

National High Court Decision 2006Du2492 ( December 06, 2006)

The input tax deduction for gold bullion exporters who knew or were not aware of the existence of a malicious business operator due to gross negligence is not allowed against the good faith principle.

If the Plaintiff, who is an exporter of gold bullion, knew or was unaware of the fact that there was a malicious entrepreneur in relation to the transaction of gold bullion related to the instant tax invoice, the Plaintiff’s assertion of input tax deduction based on the instant tax invoice based on the transaction of gold bullion is not allowed in violation of the good faith principle.

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Nu27102. Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

XX Co., Ltd

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap5424 decided Nov. 6, 2007

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu31630 Decided May 28, 2008

Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9737 Decided December 11, 2008

Judgment before re-return

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu37635 Decided September 4, 2009

[Judgment of re-return]

Supreme Court Decision 2009Du17070 Decided July 28, 2011

July 10, 2012

August 17, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of 000 won for the first term of 2004 against the plaintiff on October 1, 2005 and value-added tax of 000 won for the second term of 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

In the first instance court in 2004, the Plaintiff sought revocation of each disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the first time, the second time value-added tax for the year 2004, and the second time-added tax for the business year 2004, and the first instance court judgment rendered each of the Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff appealed, and the judgment of the appellate court (the judgment of the party before the return) dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal. The Plaintiff appealed, and the judgment of the appellate court (the judgment of the appellate court) reversed and remanded

After remanding the case, the plaintiff added the claim that the disposition rejecting the refund of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period of 2004 to the appellate court was revoked, and the judgment of the appellate court (the judgment prior to the remanding the case) revoked the judgment of the first instance and accepted all the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed. The judgment of the appellate court (the judgment prior to the remanding the case) reversed the part concerning value-added tax except for additional taxes such as the failure to submit a list of the total tax invoices among the above appellate court's judgment,

After re-return, the Plaintiff reduced the claim on the value-added tax for the first time in 2004 and the second time value-added tax in 2004 as stated in the above claim, and withdrawn the claim on the corporate tax for the business year 2004, following the Defendant’s ex officio reduction correction as of July 7, 201.

Therefore, the scope of the party's display after the re-return is limited to the 1st of 2004 and the 2nd of 2004 excluding additional taxes such as the submission of a list of tax invoices among the 2nd of 2004.

2. Value-added tax;

The following facts are either not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, 13, 14, 30 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and 2.

[1]

0 On February 5, 2004, the Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of running gold bullion wholesale and trade business with Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu heading 175-4 heading XX apartment 000 2 heading.

From February 14, 2004 to November 14, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion equivalent to the supply price of KRW 000 (total 1,620km) from seven purchasing places, such as XX (hereinafter referred to as “the gold bullion of this case”), and received all the payment on the day after delivery of the gold bullion of this case, and received 64 copies of the purchase tax invoice on the table below from the above purchasing places (hereinafter referred to as “the tax invoice of this case”).

The plaintiff, on the date of the purchase of the gold bullion in this case, or on the following day, exported to the importer's "Otd" (hereinafter "OO") and "YY" (hereinafter "YY") the total value of the gold bullion in Hong Kong." The plaintiff calculated the output tax amount according to the above export as zero tax rate, and deducted the input tax amount under the tax invoice in this case, and made a return of the first and second returns of value-added tax (Refund return) in 2004 to the defendant.

[2]

0. The Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted a tax investigation on the ground that there was a suspicion of tax evasion and unfair refund that abused the tax exemption system to the Plaintiff, deeming the instant tax invoice as false; and (b) notified the Defendant thereof.

Pursuant to the above notice on October 1, 2005, the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount on the tax invoice of this case on October 1, 2005, and notified each of the following revised and notified KRW 000 (the amount added to KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000 on the tax invoice of this case) and KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000 on the tax invoice of this case (the amount added to KRW 00,000,000,000 on the tax invoice of this case). In addition, the Defendant refused to refund KRW 00,00,00,000,000 on the tax invoice of this case

0. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and requested to the National Tax Tribunal on June 13, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed on December 6, 2006.

[3]

On January 20, 201, in the case of gold bullion in which the so-called large coal supplier was involved, even though it does not constitute a tax invoice different from the fact that the exporter evaded the output tax amount in the previous series of transactions, it was sentenced to the Supreme Court on January 20, 201 that the exporter’s claim for the deduction and refund of the input tax amount is not permissible in light of the good faith principle under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even though the exporter knew of the fact that there was a malicious entrepreneur who evades the output tax amount in the previous series of transactions, and that the deduction and refund of the input tax amount in relation to the exporter would result in the decrease of other tax revenues, and even though he knew of the fact that the refund would result in another tax revenue reduction,

O) On July 7, 2011, the Defendant revoked ex officio the portion of additional tax due to the failure to submit a list of total tax invoices unrelated to the above principles of good faith (00 won among the first value-added tax in 2004, and 000 won among the second value-added tax in 2004), among the previous dispositions of imposition, and subsequently corrected the tax amount of the first value-added tax in 2004 from 00 won to 00 won, and the tax amount of the second value-added tax in 2004 from 00 won for the previous disposition of imposition of the first and second value-added tax in 200 won (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”).

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff confirmed the basic matters of the supplier in purchasing the instant gold bullion from the purchaser and confirmed the actual business operator without any omission, and did not omit the procedure of receiving related evidential data, and did not engage in normal transactions, such as remitting the purchase price via the Internet, and received the instant tax invoice.

In addition, the Plaintiff was unaware of whether there was a malicious entrepreneur evading the output tax amount in the course of the series of transactions in gold bullion prior to reaching the Plaintiff as a zero business entity, and whether an importer of Hong Kong, such as O and Y, is an abnormal business entity connected with the above malicious business entity, and the circumstances that the exporter’s input tax deduction and refund of the input tax amount for the exporter caused the decline in other tax revenues due to such abnormal transactions were not known, and there was no obligation to investigate such circumstances with the Plaintiff.

However, the final and conclusive judgment that the purchase tax invoice of the exporting company does not constitute a tax invoice different from the fact in the case of gold bullion exporters (stock company △△△), where the type of circulation or transaction of gold bullion in this case and the transaction partner, and the corner of overseas import business, becomes final and conclusive. The final and conclusive judgment of the preceding case constitutes the preliminary legal relationship in this case, and thus res judicata has also been effective in this case, and the facts recognized in the preceding case should also be a flexible evidence in this case, barring any special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be determined differently from the preceding case in this case where the

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing the value-added tax for the first and second period of 2004 on the Plaintiff without recognizing the deduction of the sales tax amount under the instant tax invoice is unlawful.

B. Defendant’s assertion

While trading the gold bullion in this case, the Plaintiff filed an application for deduction and refund of the input tax amount for the first and second years value-added tax against the Defendant in 2004, even though he knew or was unaware of the circumstances that there was a malicious business operator engaged in illegal transactions for the purpose of evading the output tax amount in the series of transactions before the Plaintiff, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s reduction of other tax classes. This is not permissible in light of the good faith principle under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the disposition of imposition in this case, which did not deduct the Plaintiff’s input tax amount, is legitimate.

4. Principle of good faith

(a) Relevant legal principles;

(1) If an exporter gains input tax deduction or refund from a malicious entrepreneur who makes an illegal transaction for the purpose of evading the output tax amount in the course of a series of transactions previously conducted prior to the transaction of gold bullion, and thus, an exporter wants to deduct or refund input tax amount even though he knew or did not know it by gross negligence, even though he/she knew of the fact that the deduction or refund of input tax amount with respect to the exporter would result in a decrease in other tax revenues, this is not only a malicious exporter who takes advantage of the system of input tax deduction or refund, thereby taking part of the output tax amount evaded by a malicious entrepreneur as a profit, but also a malicious entrepreneur’s gains tax deduction or refund as well as undermining the basis of the VAT system and the overall tax justice under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Du13474, Jan. 20, 201).

(2) In a case where the exporter was unaware of the existence of such an illegal transaction due to gross negligence in light of the perspective of fairness, the importance of the outcome, and the universal sense of justice, it is reasonable to deem that the above legal principle equally applies to a case where the exporter was aware of the existence of such an illegal transaction by deeming it as a malicious business operator’s relationship, and the exporter was able to have sufficiently known of such fact, and where the exporter was not aware of such fact by significantly violating his/her duty of care to the extent close to his/her intent. It is not limited to a case where there was a specific conspiracy or accomplice relationship between the exporter and the malicious business operator who made the illegal transaction with the exporter (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Du13474, Jan. 20, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties, or acknowledged as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the personal examination result (except for the non-trusted portion) of the court of the first instance after the re-transfer and re-transfer of Gap evidence 7 and Eul evidence 3 through 29 (including the serial number).

[1]

From around 0202 to December 31, 2004, the Act on the Restriction of Special Taxation abused the zero-rate or zero-rate tax exemption system among precious metal companies located in Seoul as Seoul, thereby converting gold bullion into the taxation amount after importing it through various stages of zero-rate or zero-free tax exemption, and then converting it into the taxation amount to the so-called wide-scale carbon business. In other words, it is exported by a large-scale wholesale company through a variety of stages of wholesale companies. In the event that a large-scale coal company discontinues its business without paying the value-added tax, it is practically impossible to collect the value-added tax of the State. The exporter extended the so-called wide-scale carbon business to receive the value-added tax that was not paid by the large-scale coal company after exporting the purchased gold bullion through the

OP business purchases gold bullion as a tax-free gold and sells it as a tax-free gold, and then evades the value-added tax by withdrawing, concealing, and closing the profit within a short period of time.The gas-free business entity sells gold bullion with the supply price lower than the purchase price, but the supply price plus the value-added tax is higher than the purchase price, and because the transaction-free value is not paid, the difference between the supply price and the purchase price will be earned as a profit.

On the other hand, the transaction volume of the value-added tax made by the company in the following stages is successively transferred by each company that received the input tax from the immediately preceding stage company in order to deduct the input tax amount by using the tax invoice received from the company in the immediately preceding stage, but ultimately, the exporter exports the gold bullion and then is entitled to refund from the State in accordance with the application of zero-rate tax rate. Of the amount refunded by the State, the substantial portion of the value-added tax amount paid by the company in the country is the ultimate source of the profits from the wide coal business. The profit is distributed to the domestic companies involved in the large coal business in each transaction stage in the large coal business, or the amount calculated by the ratio of the profit of the large coal company, which is separately paid to the participating company in the large coal business, is distributed in the form of the so-called white dust, the difference between the import price and the export price (the export price is lower than the import price if based on the domestic companies).

[2]

0 The instant gold bullion purchased and exported by the Plaintiff was converted from a foreign country to a taxable gold, and was distributed as a variable by the importer to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff had received total 8,9 stages from the importer to the Plaintiff. At each transactional stage, the so-called so-called so-called Hong Kong importing company, which, without reporting or paying value-added tax, such as △△ Gad, Cheongju, and Cheongju, was necessarily involved. The Plaintiff exported the instant gold bullion purchased to the Hong Kong importing company, including OO, YY, all of which were located in Hong Kong without any processing, and most of the said transactions were conducted between the date or following the date of import of the relevant gold bullion, and imported and exported the said gold bullion for about 4,7 days.

Although it is essential to place an identification number of gold bullion for each gold bullion transaction, since the weight and net level of gold bullion can be different, it is essential for the plaintiff to record the identification number of the gold bullion for the specific purpose.

In the U.S. gold bullion transaction is delivered, it is established in the business practices of receiving cash at the same time as the transaction of gold bullion. However, the Plaintiff purchased most of the instant gold bullion on credit, and exported it to the Hong Kong importer. The Plaintiff immediately received the export payment from the Plaintiff’s purchasing and trading office to the first importer, and the payment has been made in sequence within 1,2 hours for 8,9-level companies.

11 of the total number of exports of the gold bullion of this case between the plaintiff and the Hong Kong school, such as OO, Y, etc., was a large amount of 37 cases where the export price reaches KRW 000 won at one time. However, the plaintiff not only received the export price since 3 and 4 days have passed since the export of gold bullion, but also did not receive a security for the payment of export price from the above Hong Kong importing enterprise or enter into a guarantee agreement with the above enterprise, and there was no fact that the plaintiff purchased an insurance policy against the unpaid payment.

In 2004, gold bullion was exported to the price lower than the domestic market price without exception, because gold bullion traded by the Plaintiff was higher than the international market price in 2004, the Plaintiff would have been able to obtain more profits by making domestic trade. Therefore, without exception, the Plaintiff exported gold bullion to the price lower than the domestic market price (the actual export price was lower than the international market price).

[3]

O Hong Kong's OO is designated as an importer of gold bullion from a large number of domestic gold bullion companies related to the bombing business, and O was located in Hong Kong's poor people and the wellne zone in Hong Kong, Y refused to submit all documents and books related to the transaction, and Y was not verified at the time of the on-site investigation by the National Tax Service's staff.

0 Although the domestic market price of gold bullion was higher than the international market price, the Plaintiff exported the gold bullion at a price below the average of USD 000 per domestic market price, and even though the profits from the export of gold bullion were 0.3 through 0.5%, there was no application for refund of customs duties equivalent to 3% of the import price under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export at the time of import.

After the tax payment security system (Article 106-3 (11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act) was implemented on April 1, 2005, the trade volume of gold bullion decreased rapidly as follows:

[4]

On February 5, 2004, the representative director of the Plaintiff, Kim K, for a period of 7,8 months, working in GG (hereinafter “GG”) that was accused of tax evasion prior to the establishment of the Plaintiff Company, and was in charge of the business of directly transporting gold bullion to the above Hong Kong importing company in the process of exporting gold bullion purchased from the domestic purchasing agency to OO andY. The newF, the representative director of GG, was indicted for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act due to an irregular gold bullion transaction.

Around November 2003, OG was an OO at the time of being investigated as a suspicion of tax evasion through an irregular gold bullion transaction from the Seoul Customs office. KimK was prohibited from departure for one month at the time of the above investigation in relation to the duties performed by GG, and was also subject to investigation by the prosecutor's office. Since KimK was established with the help of the certified tax accountant in charge of GG (HH) on February 5, 2004, after being investigated by the prosecutor's office, OO and Y traded with the instant gold bullion in the same manner as GG, after being established with the help of the certified tax accountant in charge of GG (HH) on February 5, 2004, after being investigated by the prosecutor's office, O and Y traded traded with the instant gold bullion in the same manner as GG. The representative director of the 00 Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was not aware of the source of the capital payment in the course of the tax investigation against the Plaintiff, and that the purchase of gold bullion was mainly borrowed from others (Evidence No. 11).

On the other hand, Yellow TT, a Chinese representative of the GG, has invested in the gold bullion business related to the wide coal business, such as GG, through the newF, which is the representative of the GG.

In 2004, the representative director of the plaintiff, Kim KK, at the time of 2004, had earned income amount of KRW 000 per annum, and only one apartment bond in the name of an individual was owned in Busan.

C. Determination

(1) In light of the above facts, the circumstances are as follows.

∎이 사건 금지금 거래는 조세포탈을 목적으로 하는 변칙적인 금지금거래의 전형적인 모습을 띄고 있다. 이 사건 금지금 거래가 정상적인 거래라면, 금지금의 외상거래, 단 기간 내의 수입 • 수출 반복, 1. 2시간 이내의 전단계 모든 거래에 대한 대금지급, 8, 9개 도매업체의 경유, 관세환급금 미신청, 국내시세보다 저렴한 가격으로의 금지금 수출, 금지금 고유번호 미기재, 수출대금의 담보나 보증 없는 금지금의 선인도 등의 이례적인 일련의 거래행위 내지 거래형태를 합리적으로 설명할 수 있어야 하나, 원고의 대표이사 김KK는 국내 매입처나 홍콩 수입업체의 경영자들과 특별한 친분 등이 없었다고 하면서도(을 제11호증), 이들을 믿고 국내 매입처로부터 외상으로 금지금을 매입한 후 홍콩 수입업체들에 금지금을 먼저 수출한 다음 며칠 후에 수출대금을 송금받아 이를 매입처에 지급하였다고 주장하고 있을 뿐이어서, 이 사건 금지금 거래가 정상적인 거래라는 원고의 주장은 수긍하기 어렵다.

∎또한, △ 원고가 수출하는 금지금을 수입하는 업체는 OO, YY이유일하였는바 금지금의 수출을 주목적으로 설립된 회사가 위와 같이 단일한 거래선만 보유하고 있다거나, 단지 지인의 소개만으로 외국의 특정 수입업체와 거래할 목적으로 법인을 설립하는 하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이례적인 것으로 볼 수밖에 없는 점. △ 원고의 대표이사 김KK의 경력 및 그 보유 자산 규모 등에 비추어 2004. 2. 5.경 자력으로 1년 매출이 000원을 초과하는 원고를 설립하여 운영하기는 어려웠다고 보이고, 김KK도 원고에 대한 세무조사 당시 그 납입 자본금의 출처를 밝히지 못한 점, △ GG이 2003. 11 경부터 서울세관으로부터 조세포탈 혐의로 조사를 받게 되어 사실상 그 영업이 어려워지기 시작한 시점이자 그 조사기간 동안인 2004. 2. 5. GG 의 직원이던 김KK가 GG의 담당세무사의 도움을 얻어 원고를 설립하고 GG에서와 동일한 홍콩 수입업체와 사이에 동일한 방법으로 금지금 수출입거래를 한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고의 대표이사 김KK는 GG의 대표이사 신FF 또는 위 회사의 지시에 따르거나 그들로부터 도움을 받아 OO, YY 등 기존 홍콩 수입업체들과 거래를 유지할 목적으로 원고를 설립한 것으로 보인다.

∎원고가 이 사건 금지금을 수출한 OO, YY 등 홍콩 수입업체는 그 소재지나 그 대표자의 진술, 회사규모, 거래방법, 위 홍콩 수입업체의 대표자가 오히려 GG등 국내 금지금 수출업체에 상당한 금액을 투자하고 있었던 점 등에 비추어 일반적으로 외국으로부터 금지금을 수입하여 판매하는 정상적인 수입업체로 보기 어렵다. 원고의 대표이사인 김KK는 원고를 설립하기 이전부터 동일한 방법으로 위 홍콩 수입업체들과 금지금 수출입 거래를 한 GG에서 위 홍콩 수입업체에게 금지금을 직접 인도하는 업무를 담당하였으므로, 위 홍콩 수입업체들을 방문하거나 위 수입업체들 의 직원 등과 직접 접촉함으로써 국세청의 현지 조사시 확인한 바와 같은 OO의 소재지, 금지금의 순도 등을 별도로 확인하지 않는 운영형태, YY의 실체 등에 관하여 충분히 알 수 있었다고 보인다.

∎이 사건 금지금 거래는 금지금의 수출시 가격이 수입시 가격보다 낮고 국내시세 및 국제시세보다도 낮아 전체적으로 손해를 보면서 수출하는 비정상적인 거래로서, 이는 거래의 중간단계에서 영세율 • 면세로 금지금을 매입하여 과세로 매출하는 업체(폭탄업체)가 부가가치세를 포탈하지 않고서는 도저히 설명할 수 없는 거래이고, 원고는 그 과정에서 부가가치의 창출없이 부가가치세만 환급받음으로써 수출가격에 국가로부터 환급받는 부가가치세액을 더한 금액에서 매입세액을 공제한 만큼의 이익을 얻는 것인바, 위와 같은 거래구조상 원고로서는 자신이 과세로 매입한 이 사건 금지금의 대부분이 폭탄업체를 거친 것이라는 사정을 충분히 알 수 있었다고 보인다.

∎이 사건 금지금을 수입한 수입업체나 원고를 비롯한 이 사건 금지금 매입업체들은 영업이익률이 1%에도 미치지 못하였음에도 불구하고 그 누구도 수출 당시 그 수입시에 납부된 관세에 대하여 「수출용 원재료에 대한 관세 등 환급에 관한 특례법」에 따 른 수업가액의 3%에 해당하는 관세를 환급받을 수 있는 권리를 행사하지 않았는데, 이는 일반인의 경험칙에 반하는 것으로서 다른 특별한 이유가 없는 한 합리적인 의사결정으로 보기 어렵다. 한편으로 2005. 4. 1. 이후 납세담보제도 시행 후 전체적인 금지금의 수출업 무역량이 급격하게 감소하였고, 원고 또한 납세담보제도 시행 이후 담보를 제공하고 수출을 하였다고 볼 아무런 자료가 없는바, 위와 같은 원고의 비정상적인 영업형태는, 원고가 사실상 아무런 위험부담도 없이 오로지 부가가치세를 환급받아 이득을 취하는 거래구조를 전제로 하여 설립되어 운영되었기 때문에 가능한 것이라고 보이고, 납세담보제도 시행으로 인하여 위와 같은 거래구조가 더 이상 유지될 수 없게 되자 원고가 사실상 영업을 하지 않은 것으로 보인다.

(2) As seen above, in light of the transaction behavior and distribution channel of the gold bullion related to the instant tax invoice, the period, quantity and value of the Plaintiff’s transaction, price settlement process, transaction partner’s status, establishment circumstance of the Plaintiff’s representative director, and the results of investigation and trial on GG, etc., even though there was no specific public offering or public law relationship between malicious business operators, such as △△ Gad who made illegal transactions with the Plaintiff as the exporter, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have known or failed to know by gross negligence that there was a malicious business operator with intent to evade the output tax amount at the time of the instant tax invoice transaction, and that there was no malicious business operator with intent to engage in illegal transactions for the purpose of evading the output tax amount at the time of the instant gold bullion transaction, combined with the act of the malicious business operator’s unfair act

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion of deduction and refund of input tax amount based on the instant tax invoice is not allowed in violation of the principle of good faith stipulated under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where a malicious entrepreneur exists and a malicious entrepreneur was aware of, or was unaware of, the existence of the pertinent gold bullion transaction due to gross negligence.

(3) On the other hand, the final and conclusive judgment on the claim for revocation of the disposition of imposition, including value-added tax, between the stock company, △△△△, and the defendant, claiming that the plaintiff has a prior relationship with the instant case, (i) is different from the instant case, and (ii) is not a prior legal relationship, and thus, the final and conclusive judgment does not constitute a prior legal relationship with the instant case. However, the res judicata does not affect the instant case

The facts acknowledged in the final and conclusive judgment of a certain case can be a flexible documentary evidence in other cases, unless there are special circumstances. However, it is not inconsistent with the new theory of good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes to deem that the Plaintiff’s request for deduction of input tax amount and refund of input tax amount in this case is inconsistent with the above final and conclusive judgment, even if △△△ purchased gold bullion from a purchaser transaction office in abnormal trade forms and exported gold bullion, and then deducted and refunded input tax through a purchase tax invoice delivered from the purchaser transaction office, and then the relevant tax invoice cannot be deemed to constitute a tax invoice different from the private opinion. In this case, as seen in this case, even though the Plaintiff’s request for deduction of input tax amount is not contrary to the new theory of good faith under Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the Plaintiff’s request for deduction of input tax amount and refund of input tax amount cannot be deemed to violate the new theory of good faith.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant disposition imposing the first and second input tax on the Plaintiff without recognizing the input tax deduction under the instant tax invoice and imposing the first and second input tax on the Plaintiff is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the instant disposition is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.