Whether a tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice (gold);

Since the instant transaction is merely a nominal transaction and cannot be deemed to have been transferred the actual ownership, the issue is that the tax invoice is prepared without a real transaction or is prepared differently from the actual transaction by at least the supplier, and constitutes a “tax invoice different from the actual transaction.”

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 2,408,044,060 for the first year of 2004 against the Plaintiff on Nov. 10, 2005, the imposition of KRW 9,030,470 for the second year of 2004, and KRW 469,502,460 for the business year of 2004 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 13, 2003, the Plaintiff is a company running wholesale business and trade business with its head office registered at ○○○○○○○○○○○○ 00,000 ○○○○○ 435, and now.

B. The Plaintiff received tax invoices of KRW 1,422 (17,624,031,257, 257, 3,716, 3,90,060 (hereinafter “tax invoices of this case”) from each of the above suppliers and filed a return of zero tax at an early stage by deducting the amount equivalent to the above tax invoices from input tax amount for the first and second taxable periods of the value-added tax in 2004 (hereinafter “tax invoices of this case”). The Plaintiff filed tax invoices of KRW 17,624,03,00,317 (17,624,031,257, 257, 3,716,90,060).

C. On November 10, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deducted input tax amount according to the notice of taxation data issued by the Commissioner of the ○○ Local Tax Service that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice; (b) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 2,408,04,060 for the first period of value-added tax, KRW 9,030,470 for the second year of 2004, KRW 99,030,470 for the second year of 2004, and KRW 469,502,460 for the business year of 204 (hereinafter the instant disposition).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, and Eul evidence 2 and 3

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The tax invoice of this case is illegal to impose value-added tax by treating it as a false tax invoice that is related to a normal transaction that the Plaintiff confirmed whether it is a normal business operator due to the certified transcript of corporate register, the business registration certificate, etc. of the supplier while purchasing the gold bullion. Furthermore, as long as the tax invoice of this case is normal, the tax invoice of this case is not received as a documentary evidence under the Corporate Tax Act.

(b) Related statutes;

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry items”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

Corporate Tax Act

Article 76 (Additional Tax)

(5) In case where a corporation (excluding such corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with an entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to receive the evidential documents falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the amount not received, except for the case where the proviso of

§ 116. Receipt and safekeeping of documentary evidence of expenditure

(2) In cases falling under paragraph (1), where any corporation receives goods or services from a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree and pays the price therefor, it shall receive evidential documents falling under any one of the following subparagraphs and keep them: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases prescribed

2. Tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The instant gold bullion was all imported from a foreign country and distributed as a tax-free gold, and was converted from an importer to a total of 6-8 stages from the importer to the Plaintiff. All stages of transactions were conducted around the date of import of the relevant gold bullion. The Plaintiff exported all the instant gold bullion on the date of purchase. The export price of the instant gold bullion was lower than the price imported by the importer.

(2) The export of this case purchased the gold bullion of this case on credit, and exported it on credit to ○○○○ company where no particular human and material facilities are installed. The export price was paid by the Plaintiff around the day following the sales profit and was made by means of credit transaction and remitting it to the purchasing company. In this regard, there was no particular credit guarantee in relation thereto.

(3) On the other hand, the wholesalers converting the gold bullion of this case into the taxable gold during the distribution did not fulfill their obligation to pay value-added taxes by closing their business after selling the gold bullion of this case to the supply price lower than the purchase price (However, the amount added to the value-added tax amount, i.e., the purchase price higher than the purchase price).

(4) Upon the implementation of the "tax exemption system under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act" from July 1, 2003, among gold bullion distributors, the so-called "tax exemption system" was introduced, and the so-called "the so-called "tax exemption system" was added to 10% value-added tax for the gold bullion distributors and foreign gold bullion exporters and importers who sell gold bullion, which had been distributed as tax-free gold to the whole phase of the breadth companies, was unable to collect the value-added tax by withdrawing the profit within a short period of time after withdrawing the profit in cash, and then closing the business without paying the value-added tax. After the breadth companies, the exporters who received the tax invoice at each stage and export the gold bullion at zero-rate rate and receive the value-added tax refund from the government, and eventually, the State suffered losses equivalent to the value-added tax refund paid by the exporter, and the so-called "the so-called "the method of food consumption business is operated by dividing the profits of gold bullion distributors and foreign gold bullion exporters and importers."

Revenue

Business Operators

? ?

Tax Exemption

Intermediate Award

? ?

Bombomb

Enterprise

? ?

Taxation

Intermediate Award

? ?

Wholesale

Enterprise

? ?

Export

Enterprise

? ?

Export

(5) After the instant gold bullion was distributed as tax-free gold through a few stages, ○○ Trade, ○○○, ○○○○, after going through a wide business entity, such as ○○ Korea, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○ ○○○○○○○, etc., the Plaintiff was exported through the Plaintiff. The breadth companies either discontinued any assets without paying the value-added tax, or obstructed the representative without paying the value-added tax, and ○○, ○, ○, ○, and Red ○, etc., which are the actual operators of the said breadth companies, was convicted of the facts of the crime committed by tax evasion.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of the evidence (including paper numbers) set forth in Nos. 9 through 28 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

In light of the circumstances revealed through the above recognition, namely, the closeness of the date of export and import of the gold bullion of this case, the size of the company located at ○○, the export counterpart, the amount of the goods price and the unique nature of the payment method, the complicated form and size of the transaction of this case, whether the transaction of this case is evaded in intermediate transaction, and the progress of criminal proceedings against related persons, etc., the tax invoice of this case received by the Plaintiff is merely a mere creation of the appearance of the transaction for the purpose of refund of value-added tax without any supply of goods, transaction, or movement. Thus, the tax invoice

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.