Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap36500 ( December 30, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2007west3836 (Law No. 87.09)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual gold bullion was purchased for this disposition through a processing transaction

It is judged that a false tax invoice has been issued without a real transaction because the other party was convicted of issuance of a false tax invoice, that the transaction between three years takes most the cash transaction method, and that a false tax invoice has been issued in relation to the gold bullion transaction.

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

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second term portion in 2001 (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), for the first term portion in 2002, 98,63,910 won of value-added tax for the second term portion in 2002, for the second term portion in 203, 48,340,720 won of value-added tax for the second term portion in 202, for the first term portion in 2003, for 36,290,960 won of value-added tax for the second term portion in 203, for 36,478,700 won of value-added tax for the second term portion in 204, for the first term portion in 204, for 14,4830,300 won of corporate tax for the first term from July 1, 201 to June 30, 2002, for 305.36.7

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. ① The defendant's imposition disposition of value-added tax of 201 45,054,980 won, value-added tax of 201 45,054,980 won, value-added tax of 1 year 2002 98,663,910 won, value-added tax of 28,613,530 won, value-added tax of 2 year 2002 48,340,720 won, value-added tax of 2 year 203 36,290,960, value-added tax of 2 year 2004 20,478,700 won, or of 2 year 2004 20,705,36,37,207,301 through 30.7.1, 201 to 30.6.30,637,2005 won, respectively.

The reasoning for the court's explanation in this case is as follows: "No. 33,34,35 of the judgment of the court of first instance and testimony of the witness Kim A of the court of first instance" are added to the evidence of rejection of "No. 33,34,35 of the judgment of the court of first instance"; "No. 36,37 of the evidence and No. 38-1 or No. 5 of the evidence No. 38" are the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of "No. 36,37 of the evidence" to the evidence of lack.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.