logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2012. 01. 06. 선고 2011누15857 판결
금지금 거래과정에 폭탄업체가 존재하였던 점 등 제반 사정만으로 명목상의 거래라고 단정할 수 없음[국패]
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap41826 ( October 21, 2011)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2718 ( December 21, 2010)

Title

It cannot be readily concluded that it is a nominal transaction solely for all the circumstances, such as that there was a bomb coal company in the gold bullion transaction process

Summary

(1) It is difficult to readily conclude that the supply of goods subject to value-added tax is not a nominal transaction, solely based on all the circumstances, including the fact that there was a wide carbon company at a series of transactions of gold bullion, or that gold bullion is delivered and paid solely for the purpose of disguised trade in real transactions.

Related statutes

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

Cases

2011Nu1587 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Plaintiff, Appellant

XX precious metal corporation

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Head of the tax office;

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap41826 decided April 21, 2011

Conclusion of Pleadings

November 4, 2011

Imposition of Judgment

January 6, 2012

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 354,428,520 on June 1, 2010 for the second term portion of value-added tax for the year 2005 against the Plaintiff, KRW 235,773,970 on the first term portion of value-added tax for the year 2006, and KRW 42,261,050 on the corporate tax for the year 2005, and KRW 28,589,060 on the corporate tax for the year 206 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

Reasons

The reasons for this decision are as shown in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the fact that the tax invoice of this case is insufficient to be deemed to constitute a false tax invoice even if the written statement of No. 8-1, 2, 3, and 9-2 submitted by the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance is added to all the evidence submitted by the defendant in the trial of the court of first instance. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow