The legitimacy of the assertion that the actual gold bullion was traded on the disposition due to the processing transaction

In light of the fact that the export price is traded on credit from the time of import to the time of export, the approval is made in the reverse order only when the export price is paid, even if there are more benefits in domestic distribution, the export is made within the short period of time per day from the import to the export, and the export is determined as a processing transaction without real transactions.

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

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.

Defendant limited to the Plaintiff on September 8, 2005

(a) Disposition of imposition of value-added tax of 7,761, 624, 290 won for one year, 204;

(b) Disposition of refusal of refund of value-added tax amounting to 295,659,104 for a period of two years, 2004;

(c) Imposition of additional tax amounting to 29,537,780 won and additional tax amounting to 29,537,780 won for failure to submit a list of total tax invoices on value-added taxes for the second period of 204, and penalty tax for failure to file

(d) revoke each of the imposed rates of KRW 1,334,842,870 of the corporate tax for the year 2004.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 16, 2003, the Plaintiff established for the purpose of gold export business, etc. on 25 occasions in 2004, purchased gold bullion (one gold bullion 58,122,541,09 won, two years in 2004, nine hundred five or more, nine or more, five or more gold bullion (one gold bullion 58,122,541,099 won in January 2, 2004, two or more93,329,098 won in order; hereinafter referred to as "gold bullion 9.5% in order; hereinafter referred to as "gold bullion 205, five or more gold bullion 205, five or more gold bullion 205, five or more gold bullion 208, five or more gold bullion 205,505, 207, 284, 2084, 205, 2084, 2084, 2094, 20675, 20674, 2754, 2674, 2067

B. The Defendant imposed KRW 60,679,221,50 on September 8, 2005 on the Plaintiff on the ground that the purchase tax invoice (the purchase tax invoice in this case: KRW 57,725,425,43,500 on the Plaintiff received from ○○ and ○○ Points in 2004; KRW 2,953,778,000 on the Plaintiff; KRW 2,953,778,00 on the Plaintiff in collusion with the customer in order to evade value-added tax in advance and was the most tax invoice for the normal transaction in order to avoid value-added tax; ② the Plaintiff refused to refund KRW 295,659,104 on the Plaintiff in 204, and imposed penalty tax on KRW 58,794,250 on the Plaintiff in 204,304 (the purchase tax invoice in this case); ③ the disposition imposing penalty tax on each of the Plaintiff in this case’s 2004.

C. On January 1, 2006, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal, but received a decision of dismissal on September 19 of the same year, and filed the instant lawsuit on December 18 of the same year.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff had never known the fact that ○○○ and ○○ point, a gold bullion supplier, in collusion with the “large-scale carbon supplier, distributed profits from the evasion of value-added tax to other gold bullion distributors. Since the purchase transaction with these suppliers and the export transaction with Hringfung was actually conducted, the instant disposition based on the premise that the purchase tax invoice in this case is a different tax invoice from the fact is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

C. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

A) The Plaintiff’s representative director’s old head office has been engaged mainly in French business before the Plaintiff Company is incorporated, and there is no gold bullion transaction.

B) The Plaintiff’s transaction of gold bullion was conducted in the form of immediately exporting gold bullion supplied from ○○ and ○ points to Hringfung, and the Plaintiff did not supply gold bullion to another domestic company.

C) The main text of the Gu ○ does not have directly visited gold bullion buyers, such as ○○ and ○ points, once. Gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff to Hringfung was exported from ○○○ and ○ points immediately via the airport customs office, and there are only one column in which gold bullion was kept in the Plaintiff’s office.

D) The gold bullion that the Plaintiff purchased and exported to Hringfung was traded on the day or by means of export on the following day after the distribution process of the gold bullion imported on the same day. The Plaintiff’s export unit was always lower than the import unit price and the domestic wholesale price.

E) At all times, sales are made at approximately 6-7% of its purchase price, and 6-7% of its purchase price, and the non-party 'the non-party 'the non-party 'the non-party 'the non-party ' who did not report or pay the value-added tax' was involved in the transaction. However, the limited carbon company is liable to pay value-added tax while converting gold bullion, which is a taxable article, into taxable

F) The Plaintiff purchased gold bullion from ○○, and ○ points on credit, and paid the gold bullion payment after receiving the export payment from Hringfung, and thereafter, the gold bullion payment was made in turn in the order of opposition in the distribution process of gold bullion.

G) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s judgment was final and conclusive on the ground that ○○ filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of value-added tax against the head of a final tax office, but the sales tax invoice issued by ○○ constitutes a false tax invoice, and the purchase tax invoice received constitutes a tax invoice different from the fact. Therefore, the disposition imposing value-added tax on ○○ was legitimate for the first period of January, 2003

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 3, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) The following circumstances revealed through the above recognition: (a) Persons who were involved in the distribution of the gold bullion from the time the gold bullion was imported to Hringfung for the first time; (b) the Plaintiff handled the purchase price on credit; and (c) the Plaintiff paid the export price from Hringfung; (c) the Plaintiff’s transaction behavior appears to be impossible without the public invitation of all relevant parties; and (b) the Plaintiff’s export price of gold bullion was considerably low compared with the national tax and domestic market taxes; and (c) the parties to the transaction, including the Plaintiff, reversed the export through a variety of distribution processes where it was impossible to explain that it was not for the purpose of refund of value-added tax; and (d) each of the wholesalers was involved in the distribution process of the gold bullion at a price lower than the purchase price, and thus, it appears that the Plaintiff’s actual supplier or the parties to the transaction could have avoided the sales of gold bullion within the actual period of time by taking account of the fact that the gold bullion was distributed at a price lower than the purchase price.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.