National High Court Decision 2007Nu2821 ( October 17, 2007)

Whether the purchase tax invoice of gold bullion constitutes a disguised transaction for illegal refund

The tax authority's assertion that the purchase of gold bullion through a bombing company is merely a transaction for the purpose of the refund of value-added tax from the State by abusing the zero-rate system recognized for exporters rather than normal goods exports. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

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

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 7 (Supply of Services)

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 5, 2007 against the Plaintiff was revoked. The disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of February 2003, 1,684, 207, 700 won, value-added tax for the first period of January 2004, 166, 316, 316, 90 won, and 271 value-added tax for the second period of February 5, 2004, 854, 695, and

2. The costs of the lawsuit are incidental to the defendant.

It is the same as the disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

가, 원고는 2003. 10. 25' ◎산 사◎구 하◎동 4◎8-2에서 '▢▢무역'이라는 상호로 사 업자등록을 한 후 금지금(金地金, Go1d Ingot, 이 사건에서는 '금괴・골드바 등 원재료 상태로서 순도가 1, 000분의 995 이상인 금'을 말한다) 도매업을 영위하다가 2005. 9. 30. 폐업하였다.

나. 원고는 2003. 10. 25.부터 2004' 12. 31.까지 사이에 주식회사 ▢▢와이드(이하 '▢▢와이드'라 한다) 등 6개 업체(이하 '이 사건 매입처들'이라고 한다)로부터 공급가액 합 계 57, 023, 120, 000원 상당의 금지금(이하 '이 사건 금지금'이라 한다)을 매입하고 매입세 금계산서 97장(이하 '이 사건 매입세금계산서'라고 한다)을 수취하였는바, 구체적인 매입 내역은 아래와 같다.

다. 원고는 그 후 홍콩의 구매업자인 ▢▢▢페스 리미티드, ●●리 트레이딩 컴퍼니 ( 이하 위 2개 업체를 '이 사건 수출처'라 한 다)에 수출가액 합계 57, 495, 310, 612원 상당의 금지금을 수출한 후, 당해 과세기간의 부가가치세를 신고하면서 매출세액 계산에는 영세율을 적용하고, 매입세액으로서 이 사건 매입세금계산서상의 공급가액에 따른 금액을 공제하여 부가가치세 조기환급 선고를 하여 2003년 2기분 부가가치세 1, 684, 207, 700원, 2004년 1기분 부가가치세 3, 166, 316, 990 원, 2004년 2기분 부가가치세 854, 695, 160원의 합계 5, 705, 219, 850원을 환급받았다.

D. As a result of conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received the value-added tax unfairly by disguised normal transactions for the purpose of tax evasion, and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on December 19, 2006, as well as imposed value-added tax on the Plaintiff prior to the tax evasion suspicion, on February 5, 2007 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. As to this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on July 19, 2007 through a review of legality prior to taxation and an objection, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on October 17, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] The whole purport of the arguments in the following categories: non-satisfy, evidence 1 to 3; evidence 1 to 1; evidence 1-3; evidence 2-4

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's principal

The Plaintiff asserted that the purchase tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, or that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff knew or could have known the tax rate. The Plaintiff asserted that the purchase tax invoice of this case is a false tax invoice, and that the disposition of this case was made on the premise that the Plaintiff knew or could have known the tax rate.

(2) Defendant’s principal

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's transaction of the gold bullion of this case was only the appearance of transaction, and it constitutes a disguised transaction that is not possible to be conducted in normal commercial transactions, and thus, the disposition of this case is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

Article 7 (Supply of Services)

C. Facts of recognition,

(1) Under Article 11(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, the zero tax rate shall apply to the supply of goods for export; under Article 106-3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7577 of Jul. 13, 2005), gold bullion supplied by wholesalers and refiners who currently received tax-free recommendations from those who recommend tax-free gold sheets and gold craftsmen, etc. to those who import gold bullion with tax-free gold bullion import from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005, the zero tax rate shall apply; under Article 106-3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7577 of Jul. 13, 2005), gold bullion import by those who import gold bullion import with tax-free gold bullion import; under Article 11(1)106-3 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, gold bullion import through various stages of value-added tax exemption; and under Article 106-3 of the so-called gold bullion import through tax-free trade.

(2) 원고는 2001. 12. 4.부터 현재까지 부산 사◎구 하◎동 498-2에서 구룡성이라 는 상호로 중국음식점을 운영하고 있는데, 예전부터 알고 지내던 소외 박●석을 통하여 급지금 수출에 관한 정보를 듣고 금지금 수출업을 시작하게 되었다,

(3) The Plaintiff shall act as an agent with respect to the export of prohibited gold on behalf of tin.

11. 28. ▢▢와이드(대표이사최●부)와수출대행계약을체결하여2004. 3.경까지골드와°1.:=.에게수출업무를대행시켰다.

(4) 원고는 2004. 3. 30. 홍콩에 가서 골드아팩스와 거래를 트고 그 무렵부터 원고 가 직접 수출하기 시작하였는데, 홍콩으로 운반할 금지금이 소량인 경우 원고의 처남 박 성양이 이를 운반하였고, 물량이 많을 경우에는 금지금 운송계약을 체결한 ▢▢리코 인 터내셔날 ▢▢▢블즈 트랜스포트 (홍콩) 엘티디의 서울지사인 한국금융안전을 통하여 금지금을 운반하였다.

(5) Most of the gold bullion purchased by the Plaintiff were imported from a foreign company and converted into a tax-free gold at the distribution stage. They were exported through the Plaintiff through several disputes from the importing company.

(6) The Plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase the gold bullion to the purchaser of this case and deposited the gold bullion with Lone Bank prior to its delivery, and all of the purchased gold bullion is required to be shipped on credit to the export site of this case, and the withdrawal amount was paid on the day following the day on which most of the export was made.

(7) 한편 ▢▢쥬얼리, ▢▢물산, (주) ▢▢더스아이앤씨, (주) ▢▢벨리, (주) ▢▢ 아이피, (주) ▢▢통상, (주) ▢▢미골드, (주) ▢▢비지주열리 등 이 사건 금지금을 그 유 통 중에 과세금으로 전환한 폭탄업체들은 모두 자신들이 매입한 금지금을 I매입가액보다 낮은 공급가액(다만 여기에 부가가치세액을 더한 액수, 즉 공급대가는 매입가액보다 높다)에 매출한 후 폐업해 버림으로써 부가가치세 납부의무를 이행하지 않았다.

(8) The export price of the instant cracks was lower than the domestic market price, and even compared with the international market price (the same shall apply to 71 times out of total 94 exports), the Plaintiff left profit margins of KRW 504,804,00 as gold bullion transactions from October 28, 2003 to March 24, 2004.

(9) The Plaintiff did not receive a divisional certificate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs Duties for Raw Materials for Export, which is necessary for the exporter to refund 3% of customs duties while exporting gold bullion.

(10) On April 29, 2008, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition of suspending indictment on the ground that the Plaintiff's suspicion of evading value-added tax amounting to KRW 5.7 billion on the gold bullion of this case was found to have been suspected, but there was a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the real estate, etc. equivalent to KRW 3:60,000,000

[Based on the recognition] evidence of subparagraph 7, evidence of subparagraph 14-1 to 16, evidence of subparagraph 15, evidence of subparagraph 16-1 to 21, evidence of subparagraph 17-1 to 15, evidence of subparagraph 18-2, evidence of subparagraph 19-1 to 7, evidence of subparagraph 22-1 to 27, evidence of subparagraph 3-1 to 3, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 3-1, evidence of subparagraph 3-1 to 4, evidence of subparagraph 2-1, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 5, evidence of subparagraph 3-1 to 4, evidence of subparagraph 2-1, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 3, evidence of subparagraph 3-1 to 4, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 5, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 3-1, evidence of subparagraph 2-2, evidence of subparagraph 5, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 4-1, evidence of subparagraph 2-1 to 5-2

D. Determination

(1) Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods as taxable subject to value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods shall be based on all contractual or legal grounds." In light of the characteristics of value-added tax as multi-stage transaction tax, "delivery or transfer" under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all underlying acts of transferring the authority to use and file a lawsuit, regardless of the existence of actual profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001; 9Du9247, Mar. 16, 2001; 200.3.00Du9247, supra. 16, the tax invoice is determined based on the following facts: (a) the purpose and circumstance of each transaction; and (b) the subject of the denial of profits arising from a series of transactions; (c. 2.4.

(2) 위와 같은 법리에 비추어 이 사건에 관하여 살펴보면, 앞서 본 바와 같이 수입 업체로부터 수출업체에 이르기까지 실제로 금지금이 실물로 전전 유통된 사실, 원고는 2003. 10. 25.부터 2004. 12. 31.까지 사이에 이 사건 매입처들인 주식회사 ▢▢와이드를 비롯한 6개 사업자로부터 이 사건 금지금을 각 매입(이하 '이 사건 거래'라 한다)하고 그 대금을 모두 지급한 후 이 사건 매입처들로부터 이 사건 거래에 따른 매입세금계산서 97 장을 교부받은 사설, 원고는 이 사건 금지금을 매입한 당일 홍콩 소재 이 사건 수출처에 수출하고 그 과정에서 상당한 이득을 남긴 사실이 인정되는 이상, 이 사건 금지금이 수입 되어 수출되기까지의 일련의 전체거래(이하 '이 사건 전체거래'라 한다)가 모두 짧은 기간 내에 이루어지고, 그 중간 단계에 부가가치세가 면제되는 금지금을 매입한 다음 면세 추천 받지 아니한 자에게 부가가치세 과세대상이 되는 금지금으로 공급하면서 세금계산서를 작성 ・ 교부하고 그 부가가치세 상당액을 납부하지 않는 이른바 폭탄업체가 존재하고 있으며, 수출가격이 수입가격 및 수출 당시 국내사세보다 낮았고, 거래당사자들이 금지금을 수출하면서 관세를 환급받기 위하여 필요한 분할증명서를 전혀 수수하지 않았으며, 원고가 검찰로부터 조세포탈혐의로 기소유예 처분을 받았다는 등의 사정만으로는 이 사건 전체거래 중의 하나인 이 사건 거래가 세금계산서만을 발행하여 수수하거나 실제 금지금이 인도되거나 대금이 지급되었더라도 폭탄영업을 실제거래로 위장하기 위한 명목상의 거래로서 부가가치세 과세대상이 되는 재화의 공급이 아니라고 단정하기는 어렵다 할 것이고, 따라서 이 사건 거래에 따라 수취한 이 사건 매입세금계산서 역시 그 계산 서상의 공급자와 실제 공급자가 다르게 기재된 것이라거나 실물거래 없이 세금계산서만 수수된 것이라고 보기 어렵다.

(3) As to this, as a result of examining the above, heavy coal trade companies are charged with the value-added tax amount by promptly closing their business after the gold bullion trade, and the plaintiff, the exporter, in collusion with the heavy coal companies, took the form of purchasing and exporting gold bullion from the country, and obtained a refund of the value-added tax from the country, and committed an act of tax evasion, which is divided into the heavy coal companies, the State shall have the damage claim against the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant may refuse the refund in the purport of offsetting the above damage claim. In addition, the plaintiff's above sale and purchase acts are anti-social and social, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff committed the act of tax evasion in collusion with the heavy coal companies, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(4) Next, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s removal of the instant gold bullion from Korea is merely a transaction for the purpose of the refund of value-added tax from the country by abusing the zero-rate system that is recognized for exporters rather than normal goods exports. However, the Plaintiff’s removal of the gold bullion from Korea is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s removal of the instant gold bullion from Korea was made by abusing the zero-rate system for the purpose of the refund of value-added tax by abusing the zero-rate system without the Plaintiff’s intent to export the goods normally, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is based on the reasoning, and it is judged the same as the order.