Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap41028 ( October 17, 2010)

early 208west2387 (209.09)

Whether the transaction of gold bullion, etc. is made by a false purchase confirmation;

(1) It is not sufficient to acknowledge that there was a defect in the process of issuing a purchase certificate, or that the gold bullion supplied was aware of the fact that it would be used for the evasion of value-added tax after converting the gold bullion into taxable goods by a large-scale carbon business in Korea. The mere fact that the gold bullion variable transaction structure could have been known cannot be viewed as abuse of rights merely because it constitutes a case

2010Nu21879, revocation, etc. of disposition imposing value-added tax.

주식회사 〇〇

〇〇세무서장

The Seoul Administrative Court of the first instance is 2009Guhap41028 decided June 17, 2010

December 17, 2010

January 14, 2011

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax for the second term of 202 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2008, of KRW 2,406,457,460 for the second term of 2002, of KRW 12,484,867,960 for the first term of 203, of value-added tax for the second term of 2003, of value-added tax for the second term of 5,430,602,320 for the second term of 203, of value-added tax for 1,135,106,970 for the first term of 204, of KRW 642,210,00 for the corporate tax for the business year of 203, and of KRW 134,595,580 for the corporate tax for the business year

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument in the trial, and therefore, it is identical to the part on the reasoning of the judgment in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is also accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

[Supplementary Parts]

The defendant argues that the basic structure of the domestic gold bullion transactions in which a gas supplier is involved, including the purchase gold bullion transactions in this case, is that all the companies involved in the gold bullion transactions have the value-added tax evasion amount divided into profits. This structure was known or could have known that all the companies involved in the gold bullion transactions knew or could have known that it constitutes an abuse of rights where the plaintiff or the person who acquired illegal profits by soliciting the gold bullion alteration transactions, including the plaintiff, or by participating in such alteration transactions, asserts

However, as seen earlier, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff engaged in the instant gold bullion transaction after soliciting the Plaintiff to evade value-added tax with the bomb coal companies, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant gold bullion with the knowledge that the gold bullion was sold to the Plaintiff, the exporter, for the purpose of evading value-added tax in the bomb coaling company, barring any evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant gold bullion, the circumstance that the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a case where the Plaintiff could have known the aforementioned abnormal gold bullion transaction structure.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction requirement under the Value-Added Tax

In addition, the defendant argues that the purchase prohibition amount of this case used as the tool of tax evasion cannot be deemed to be the goods used or to be used for his own business, and that the input tax amount is not the input tax amount recognized by the Value-Added Tax Act, but the plaintiff purchased and exported the gold bullion as the gold exporter, and therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not reasonable.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the transaction of gold bullion in this case is invalid by Article 103 (Legal Act Contrary to Social Order) of the Civil Act because the transaction of gold bullion in this case is related to the criminal act that is tax evasion, and thus, it cannot be deducted from the input tax amount. However, in light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the transaction of gold bullion in this case constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act and thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2. Consultations

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