Whether a transaction under a written approval for purchase satisfies the requirements for the application of the zero tax rate;

Since it is difficult to presume that the plaintiff knew or could have known that the letter of approval for purchase of this case was issued based on the false export contract, the transaction of this case is conducted by the valid letter of approval for purchase, and satisfies the requirements for applying zero tax rate.

Article 11 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax of KRW 107,795,740 for the first term of 1999 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2004 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in export and import business, export and import agency business, trade agency business, etc., (1) 139,70,917 won, 2) 4 times between April 13, 1999 and April 26, 199, and (3) 689,198,077 won (i.e., 139,70,700,917 + 689,467,160 won (i.e., 139,700,9170 + 689,467,160 won) and the non-party company did not make a purchase approval (hereinafter referred to as "the transaction in this case") since it sold 139,70,970,000 won to ○○○○○, and the non-party company did not make a purchase approval (hereinafter referred to as "purchase approval case") since it did not constitute a transaction subject to the Value-Added Tax Act.

B. On June 10, 2004, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing value-added tax of KRW 107,795,740 on the Plaintiff for the instant transaction on the grounds that both Nonparty Company and Nonparty Company were issued on the basis of a false export contract, etc. and issued on the basis of the false export contract, etc., and had been sold in Korea without being exported. Since the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances, the Plaintiff could not apply zero tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-4, the whole purport of Eul's pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

A) If the letter of approval for purchase of the instant case has been issued lawfully by the head of the foreign exchange bank, and the letter of approval has been issued lawfully, the requirement for applying zero-rate tax is met only by itself, and whether there is any defect in the underlying document of the letter of approval for purchase or whether it has been actually exported at this time is irrelevant to the requirements for applying zero

B) Unless there exist special circumstances, such as that the Plaintiff knew that there was a defect in the issuance of the letter of approval for the purchase of the instant case, it cannot be said that the transaction of the instant case, which the Plaintiff supplied, is excluded from zero-rate tax objects.

(2) Defendant

A) Since the letter of approval for the purchase of the instant case does not stipulate "documents and numbers on the ground of the foreign trade management regulations," "the effective date," "the shipment date," etc., the said letter of approval cannot be deemed a legitimate letter of approval for the purchase. Therefore, the supply of the instant letter of approval does not constitute zero-value tax rate.

나) 이사건지금읜 거래경위 등에 비추어, 원고는 이사건구매승인서가 허위의 수출계약서에 의하여 발급되었고, 이사건지금이 수출에 제공되지 않을 것이라는 사정을 알았거나 충분히 알 수 있는 상황에서 지금을 공급하였으므로, 이사건거래에 대하여 영세율 적용을 배제한 것은 적법하다.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff is the ○○○○○○○ Company, which runs the ○○○○ Business with the total amount of capital equal to that of ○○○○ billion, and has been engaged in a transaction in which the Plaintiff first imported from overseas and supplied to the Nonparty Company, a subordinate seller

(2) On March 15, 1999, the Plaintiff, a domestic sub-sales company, received a letter of approval for purchase equivalent to KRW 139,700,917 (Article 139,700,917) (Article 139,70,917-6 of the Act), and received a letter of approval for purchase (Article 302,328,000 + KRW 167,262,471 won + KRW 109,959,85 won + KRW 109,946,804) for four occasions from April 13, 1999 to April 26, 199.

(3) However, the letter of approval for purchase presented by ○○○ does not contain 8 basic documents names, i.e., the effective date, ii) the date of shipment, iii) the column of the shipment date, and i.e., the seal of the president of the bank was omitted, but the seal of the head of the bank was supplemented by the above company, see subparagraph 2-6, subparagraph 4-1 (record 80 pages). (ju) the letter of approval for purchase presented by ○○○ was issued without an export contract. (8) Among basic matters, the letter of approval for purchase was issued without an export contract. (8) The basic documents names and numbers, HS classification, 90, 10, 2) effective date, and 3) were not stated.

(4) The sales of the Plaintiff to Nonparty companies are not exported and sold in Korea.

(5) The trading date that the Plaintiff sold to ○○ during the first taxable period of 1999 is 4 days in total, including April 13, 199, 4.20, 4.23, and 4.28. The trading date was 4 days in total, and there was no purchase from ○○○○. Rather, during the said taxable period, the Plaintiff purchased 689,497,160 won in total from 00 won (60 times in total from 00,000 won, which was sold to ○○○○) over several times during the said taxable period (whether the Plaintiff purchased 689,497,160 won, which was sold to ○○○○).

(6) On the other hand, during the current transactions with (ju) ○○ △△△, one of the various trading companies of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was investigated to have been distributed to the Plaintiff through a variety of stages from June 14, 200 to August 7, 200, and to have been transferred back to the Plaintiff by 1 hour and 35 minutes.

[Reasons for Recognition] No. 2-1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 6-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 4-1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 5-1 through No. 5, and the purport of the whole alteration

D. Determination

(1) Whether the letter of approval for purchase in the instant case is valid

Article 4-2-7 of the Foreign Trade Act provides that the head of a foreign exchange bank may issue a letter of credit, export contract, foreign currency purchase (deposit), local letter of credit, purchase approval document, and documents proving that he intends to produce goods provided for foreign exchange earnings under the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Trade Act, and a person who intends to obtain a purchase approval document shall apply to the head of a foreign exchange bank, along with one above document and one copy of a written application for approval for purchase of raw materials for foreign exchange earnings (goods) and one copy of a written contract for supply of goods for foreign exchange earnings, or one copy of

According to the above facts, the letter of approval for the purchase of this case, which the plaintiff received while supplying it to the non-party company now, is not issued according to the export contract required under the Foreign Trade Management Regulations, or there is any defect in which part of the necessary matters are omitted.

However, it cannot be deemed that the foreign exchange bank's written approval for purchase of this case issued by the head of the foreign exchange bank is null and void as a matter of course merely because of the above defects in the process of issuing the written approval for purchase of this case (other than whether the head of the foreign exchange bank that issued the written approval for purchase may cancel the issuance thereof). Unless there are special circumstances such as the supplier's knowledge of the defect in issuing the written approval for purchase, the supply of goods under the written approval for purchase can not be immediately excluded from zero tax rate subject to the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13735, Jan. 26, 2006). The issue of whether the non-party company supplied the non-party company with trust in the written approval for purchase presented by the plaintiff to the non-party company and then actually exported it to the non-party company is not affected by the application of zero tax rate to the plaintiff.

(2) Whether the transaction of this case by the Plaintiff is a transaction or bad faith by conspiracy with the seller

In light of the purport of applying the zero tax rate as seen above and the relevant laws and regulations, where (1) a supplier of goods sells goods by applying the zero tax rate with the knowledge of the defect in obtaining a false purchase certificate in collusion with the buyer or with the knowledge of the defect in obtaining a purchase letter, (2) a supplier’s use of a purchase certificate under the intention to evade taxes by selling them in Korea without the purpose of export is hard in business practices, and a supplier who fully knows such circumstance applies the zero tax rate based on a lawful purchase certificate presented by the buyer, it is detrimental to the order of collection of value-added tax, and thus,

In the instant transaction, as to whether the Plaintiff, a supplier of the instant purchase agreement, conspireds with, or trades in bad faith with, the non-party company with the intent to evade taxes with knowledge of the defect in the said purchase approval, the fact that there is a defect in which some of the above entries are omitted in the instant purchase approval is as seen above.

그러나 위에서 본 인정사실과 다음과 같은 제반사정, 즉 ① 원고는 무역업을 영위하는 법인으로서 지금을 최초 해외로부터 수입하여 국내 하위 거래업자들에게 일부씩 나누어 판매하여 확정적인 양도수익(원고는 해외로부터 구입하는 지금대금의 1%의 거래마진을 남기고 국내 매출처에 판매하고, 위 거래마진에서 판매부대비용을 공제한 0.65%의 확정수익을 얻으며, 이와는 별개로 지금을 국내에서 매입한 후 이를 해외로 수출하여 0.58%의 확정수익을 얻는 수익구조)을 얻어 왔는 바, 이러한 원고의 거래 및 수익구조는 국내의 하위거래업자들이 단시간내에 연속적인 판매를 통하여 근소한 시체차익을 취하면서 의도적으로 부가가치세를 포탈하는 유통구조와는 차이가 있는점(위에서 본 자본 규모와 회사 전체의 매출규모(10조원) 등에 비추어 이사건거래와 같은 지금거래를 통하여 원고가 얻은 이익은 원고의 수익증대에 큰 기여를 하고 있지 않는 것으로 보인다), ② 원고가 1999년1기분 동안 매출처로부터 제출받은 총 구매승인서는 113건에 이르는데 그 중 영세율 적용이 문제된 것은 소외회사들에 대한 5건에 불과하며, 그 금액도 위 1기분 매출액242억 원 중 약 8억 원에 그치는 점(1999년도 과세기간 동안의 원고의 전체 매출액은 7조2,000억 원 상당이고, 이 중 금거래 매출액은 1조원에 이르지만, 피고가 영세율적용을 부인한 것은 국내판매분 1,195원 중 극히 일부인 151원에 불과하다), ③ 수출용재화의 수입시에 수입업자가 납부한 관세를 최종 수출업체가 환급받기위해서는 매출처가 분할증명서를 발급받아 교부하여야 하는데, 원고는 구매승인서를 제출하여 영세율을 요구하는 매출업체에 대하여 모두 분할증명서를 발급한 점(갑 제4호증의 1 내지 171 참조), ④ 일반적으로 허위의 구매승인서를 이용하여 부가가치세를 포탈하는 거래의 경우에 자주 나타나는 ㉠하루단위의 단시간적 순환거래(위에서 본 바와 같이 원고와 ○○쥬얼리와의 거래에서 단시간적인 순환거래가 있었던 것으로 조사된 바 있으나 원고와 정상적인 지금거래를 한 것으로 평가되는 업체의 수가 대부분인 점에 비추어 이것만 가지고 원고와 소외회사들 이사의 이사건거래를 단기 순환거래로 추인하기에 부족한고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다), ㉡구매승인서의 발급신청업무대행, ㉢지금구입자금의 실질적 소요가 없음(지금 공급자가 구매자로부터 그 대금을 선입금받은 뒤 다시 그 대금으로 자신에게 지금을 공급하는 공급업체에게 구매대금을 지급하는 형태로서 자기자금의 사용은 이루어지지 아니함 의미함), ㉣지금이 매출처가 아닌 국내의 다른 업체로 바로 운송되는 경우 등의 사실이 없었던 점, ⑤ 원고로부터 지금을 매입한 소외 회사들은 통상적인 변칙적 지금거래의 유통과정에 나타나는 바와 같이 매입직후 부가가치세를 포탈할 의도로 단기간 내에 폐업한 바가 없는 점(소외 회사들은 1999년도 1기분 부가가치세의 과세기간 중에 폐업한 바 없이 계속 영업을 하였으나, 위 ○○○는 위 거래일로부터 30여 개월이 지난 2001. 12. 31. 폐업하였다), ⑥ 원고는 1999. 3. 15. (주)리○○에 지금을 매출하면서 교부받은 구매승인서(을 제4호증의 1, 기록 80쪽)에 발행은행장의 직인이 누락되어 있음을 할 고 재발급을 요청하여 발급은행장의 직인이 찍힌 구매승인서(갑 제2호증의 6)의 제출을 받기도 한 점 등을 종합하면, 을 제2, 3, 4, 6, 29, 30호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재만으로는 원고가 이 사건 구매승인서의 하자와 판매한 지금이 수출에 제공되지 않을 것이라는 사정을 알았거나 알 수 있었다고 추단하기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다{을 제6호증의 1(1999년 1기 세금계산서 거래흐름도)의 기재에 의하면, 원고가 수입한 물품의 일부가 주식회사 뉴○○에게 공급되고, 그것이 ○○교역과 ○○주얼리를 거쳐 위 뉴○○에게 다시 되돌아간 다음 원고가 뉴○○로부터 해당 물품을 재차 매수한 것처럼 되어 있으나, 이 흐름도 상의 지금 거래금액은 1999년도 1기 동안의 원고의 지금거래 당사자와의 거래 총량을 표시한 것에 불과하고 원고가 공급한 지금이 특정물로서 이동하는 경로를 표시한 것이 아니므로 이것을 이유로 원고가 뉴○○와 공모하여 이른바 '순환거래'를 하였음을 인정하기에 부족하고, 을 제30호증의 1, 2, 3(각 1999년 2기, 2000년 1기, 2000년 2기 세금계산서 흐름도)는 이 사건에서 문제된 1999년도 1기 동안의 거래가 아닐 뿐만 아니라 위에서 본 바와 같은 문제가 있으므로 이를 이유로 하여 원고의 매출처와의 공모사실을 인정하기에 역시 부족하다}.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, since the transaction of this case is conducted through a valid purchase approval and satisfies the requirements for applying zero tax rate stipulated in the relevant laws, the defendant's disposition of this case which did not use zero tax rate for the transaction of this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

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

Relevant statutes

Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6049 of Dec. 29, 199)

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;

4. Goods or services for earning foreign currency other than those as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 3, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16541 of Aug. 23, 199)

Article 24 (Scope of Exports)

(1) The export provided for in Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall be a shipment of domestic goods (including marine products arrested by a ship in Korea) from a foreign country.

(2) Goods exported under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Act shall include goods of public funds provided by an entrepreneur according to a local letter of credit and a purchase approval as provided in the Foreign Trade Act.

Article 4-2-7 (Application, etc. for Issuance of Purchase Approval)

(1) The head of a foreign exchange bank may issue a written approval for purchase pursuant to any of the following subparagraphs:

2. An export contract.

(2) A person who intends to obtain a written approval for purchase shall submit three copies of an application for approval for purchase of raw materials (goods) in attached Form 4-2 to the head of a foreign exchange bank, along with the following documents:

1. One copy of a document falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1);

2. One copy of a contract for supply of goods or a letter of promise to deliver goods for foreign exchange earnings.