propriety of a disposition denying the zero tax rate under a purchase approval for gold bullion;

It is reasonable to see that gold bullion is not exported at the time of transaction. Thus, a disposition denying the application of zero tax rate under a purchase approval is legitimate.

Article 11 (Application of Value-Added Tax Act)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of KRW 2,515,145,50 on March 17, 2002 against the Plaintiff on March 17, 2002 is revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff is a corporation established on July 5, 199 for the purpose of export and import of precious metals and Do, retail business, and Do, Do, Do, and Do, Do, Do, Do, and

B. From November 2, 2001 to December 28, 2001, the Plaintiff sold gold bullion 1,620 km (hereinafter “the gold bullion of this case”) to ○○ Commercial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Commercial”) for KRW 19,306,732,450 (hereinafter “the transaction of this case”) and submitted a written approval for purchase of raw materials (goods) for foreign exchange earnings issued from ○○ Commercial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the purchase approval of this case”) from ○○ Commercial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○ Commercial”) on the ground that it was presented, and the Plaintiff applied the zero-rate tax rate to the supply of the gold bullion of this case and did not collect the amount equivalent to the value-added tax from the Defendant, and filed a value-added tax return for the second half-year portion in 2001.

C. However, the Defendant denied the application of zero tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act on the instant transaction on the grounds that there is a serious defect in the procedure for issuing the written approval for purchase of the instant case and that the gold bullion purchased by ○○ Company was not actually exported, and corrected and notified KRW 2,515,145,500 on March 17, 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed against the Defendant on June 12, 2001, but was dismissed on July 22, 2002. The Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on October 17, 2002, but received a decision of dismissal on April 22, 2005.

Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s sales of gold bullion at zero tax rate to ○○ firm based on the letter of approval for purchase issued lawfully by the head of ○○ Bank, and was unaware of any defect in the procedure for issuing the letter of approval for purchase or whether the supplied gold bullion was actually exported. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

(2) Defendant

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff conspired with the purchaser to evade value-added tax at the time of selling the gold bullion, or knew at least that there was a significant defect in the process of issuing the letter of approval for purchase of this case, and the Plaintiff sold gold bullion to ○○○ Company at zero tax rate was converted into domestic purposes, the instant transaction is not subject to zero-rate tax.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

At the time of the instant transaction, New ○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was operating a store with the trade name of ○○○, from Busan ○dong in around 1993, and was closed for a period of one year after establishing and operating ○○○○, a corporation operating precious metal wholesale and retail and export business on July 16, 1998. On July 5, 1999, the Plaintiff was established and appointed as the representative director, but resigned on October 16, 2002. After acquiring ○○, a corporation operating the same type of business, was engaged in precious metal trading for a long time on January 22, 2002, and is well aware of the current status of domestic transactions.

Around 200, New ○○ entered into a contract for purchase of gold bullion from ○○○○ prior to the instant transaction and for purchase of gold bullion at the unit price, which is 0.2% to 0.3% of the selling price, after receiving an order for purchase from ○○○○○○○ prior to the instant transaction, and for purchase of gold bullion at the unit price, from ○○○○○○○, Inc., a stock company, ○○○○○, and 0.3% of the selling price. The actual gold bullion transport took part in the transaction in the form of the transaction in which the Plaintiff directly delivers the gold bullion to ○○○○○○○○○, through the Plaintiff’s place of business and settle the transaction price ex post, and thereby, it was also subject to an investigation on the suspicion of tax evasion and investigation on September 3, 201.

○○○, the representative director of ○○○○○ Company, completed the registration of a businessman of precious metal manufacturing, wholesale business, etc. on May 17, 200, but did not engage in any business activities until the quarter of 201. However, during the period from October 30, 2001 to December 28, 2001, it purchased gold bullion equivalent to KRW 42,797,061,915, including the gold bullion in this case at zero-rate tax rate, and then distributed gold bullion amounting to KRW 41,017,476,850 in total without exporting it, and then distributed gold bullion in the Republic of Korea. In this process, the value-added tax of KRW 4,101,327,685 was evaded, and the place of business was temporarily closed on January 25, 2002.

The letter of approval for purchase of this case presented to the Plaintiff by the ○○ Company upon purchase of the gold bullion in this case was issued for the total weight of 3,000 kilograms under the export contract, and the D&B of Hong Kong, the other party to the contract, shall deposit USD 1,500,000 of the total purchase amount of USD 30,000,000, which is 5% from USD 30,000,000 in the export contract; however, there is no such deposit fact; the supply period under the export contract is from January 10, 201 to March 10, 202, and it is impossible to simultaneously load at least 1,00 kilograms each month, but the date of shipment under the letter of approval for purchase is stated as March 10, 201.

In comparison with the letter of contract for sale of goods and the letter of contract for purchase presented by ○○○ Company at the time of the instant transaction, ○○ Company did not add his own profit to the Plaintiff, but stated that the price purchased gold bullion from the Plaintiff is exported abroad as it is. The Plaintiff and ○○ Company repeated the transaction of zero-rate gold bullion at 37 times between November 2, 2001 and December 28, 2001 based on the export contract with the date of loading on March 10, 202.

During the instant transaction process, ○○○ Company paid gold bullion payments to the Plaintiff using the Internet remittance, and the gold bullion goods were transported from the Plaintiff’s place of business through ○○○ Company on the same day to the Plaintiff’s place of business.

The total value of supply indicated in the list of tax invoices by customer of the second quarter of value-added tax reported by the Plaintiff in 2001 is 21,597,660,743 won. Among them, the zero-rate supply value arising from transactions with ○○ commercial accounts accounts for 89.39% of the total value of value-added tax imposed by transactions with 19,306,732,450 won, and the remainder of 102 companies is 2,290,928,293 won.

The Plaintiff purchased gold bullion from ○○ Metal Co., Ltd., ○○ Metal Co., Ltd., ○○ Trading Co., Ltd., ○○ Trade, and ○ Trade Co., Ltd. in 2001 at a price included in 3% of customs duties, and received a certificate of subdivision 1 necessary for refund of customs duties) from the seller. However, the Plaintiff did not issue a certificate of subdivision necessary for refund of customs duties to the ○○ Co., Ltd. which

If ○○○ Company fails to issue a certificate of subdivision from the Plaintiff, it is impossible to refund 3% of customs duties from the Korea Customs Service, and thus, it obtains a little operating profit from gold bullion transactions, it is considered as a whole 2% to 2.5% of the total damages.

The New ○○ and the Plaintiff’s chief of the business division led the instant transaction. The new ○○ entered into a false export contract as if the gold bullion were processed and exported from the beginning of January 2000 to the end of June 2000, which was issued by submitting a false export contract, and purchased gold bullion at zero tax rate using a purchase approval letter, and subsequently evaded the value-added tax by means of taxation, sales, etc., on September 20, 2004, and was prosecuted with the ○○ District Court on September 20, 2004 (the judgment of innocence was pronounced on the grounds of lack of prosecutor’s proof on December 15, 2005), and Article

○○ also served as the director in charge of ○○ Trade Co., Ltd., and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years and six months on September 23, 2005 by the ○○ District Court, which was prosecuted on September 7, 2004 and sentenced to a suspended sentence of four years and six months on November 23, 2005.

The purpose of the whole pleadings is as follows: evidence of subparagraph 4-1 to subparagraph 5-37, evidence of subparagraph 9-1 to subparagraph 10, evidence of subparagraph 1-3, Eul evidence of subparagraph 3-2, evidence of subparagraph 5-1, 5, 6, Eul evidence of subparagraph 7-1, 2, 5, Eul evidence of subparagraph 10-1, 3, 4, Eul evidence of subparagraph 11, evidence of subparagraph 12, evidence of subparagraph 12, evidence of subparagraph 16-2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence of subparagraph 17 through evidence of subparagraph 18-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(2) Determination

The issue of whether the gold bullion sold by the Plaintiff to ○○ firm is actually exported is not a requirement for applying zero-rate tax rate, and the degree of the above defect in the process of issuing the purchase approval of this case cannot be deemed as the invalidity of the above purchase approval as a matter of course. However, if it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff, a supplier of gold bullion, knew that gold bullion would not be exported because it was defective in issuing the purchase approval of this case, the supply of gold bullion of this case may be excluded from zero-rate tax rate under the Value-Added Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du13735, Jan. 26, 2006).

Therefore, in light of the facts revealed in the above facts, in particular, the gold bullion is the object of the transaction of this case, and if the transaction size is large, it seems impossible to establish the transaction itself if there is no trust to the other party, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the Plaintiff made the transaction of this case even though the Plaintiff conspired to evade the transaction of this case with the ○○ commercial company, and did not engage in the transaction of this case, at least there is a significant defect in the letter of approval for purchase of this case, and the fact that the gold bullion of this case is not actually exported.

(d)Indivate:

Therefore, since the instant transaction is not subject to zero tax rate, the instant disposition is lawful.

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.

public official law, order of law,

Added Tax Act

Article 11 (Application of Zero Tax Rate)

(1) The zero tax rates shall apply to the supply of the following goods or services:

1. Exported goods;

former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17460 of Dec. 31, 2001)

Article 24 (Control of Exports)

(2) A written approval for purchase under Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree and Article 26 (1) 2-2 of the Decree means an approval issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank within 20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods or services belongs, mutatis mutandis, to a person credit within the country under paragraph

former Foreign Trade Management Regulations (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 258 of April 12, 2002)

Article 9-2 (Scope of Local Credit Holders, etc.)

(2) A written approval for purchase under Article 24 (2) 1 of the Decree and Article 26 (1) 2-2 of the Decree means an approval issued by the head of a foreign exchange bank within 20 days after the end of the taxable period to which the time of supply for goods or services belongs, mutatis mutandis, to a person credit within the country under paragraph

Gu Regulations on External Trade Management (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2003-15 of Feb. 6, 2003)

§ 4-2-7 (Application, etc. for Issuance of Purchase Certificates)

(1) The head of a foreign exchange bank may issue a written confirmation of purchase pursuant to one of the following subparagraphs:

(2) A person who intends to obtain a purchase confirmation shall file an application with the head of a foreign exchange bank for confirmation of purchase of raw materials (goods) in attached Form 4-2, along with the following documents:

1. A document falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1);

2. A contract for supply of goods or a certificate of sale of goods for foreign exchange earnings;

(3) The head of a foreign exchange bank may issue a secondary purchase confirmation with a purchase confirmation issued pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), and may issue them in sequence at each stage, if the process of cattle processing and distribution (including the distribution of raw materials or goods) of raw materials or goods for foreign exchange earnings is multiple stages.

Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs Duties, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export

Article 9 (Refund of Customs Duties, etc.)

(1) When goods are offered for export, etc., the head of a customs office shall refund customs duties, etc. on raw materials for export of the relevant imported goods within two years retroactively from the date prescribed

(2) If the raw materials for export are traded by a local letter of credit, etc. and the transaction thereof was made by the local letter of credit, etc. immediately preceding, within the period as determined by the Presidential Decree, the period from the date of import of the raw materials for export until the date of last transaction by the local letter of credit, etc. shall not be included in the period as referred to in paragraph (1). This shall not apply if the raw materials for export is traded as it

Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Refund of Customs, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export

Article 10 (Calculation of Period of Transactions by Local Letters of Credit, etc.)

(1) "Period prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 9 (2) of the Act means one year.

(2) The head of a customs office may issue a document certifying the amount of customs duties, etc. to the goods transacted in a state of import (referring to purchase in the course of transactions under a local letter of credit, etc

(3) Any person who intends to be issued a document attesting the amount of customs duties, etc. payable under paragraph (2) shall file an application stating the following matters with the head of the competent customs office:

1. Transferor and transferee;

2. Transfer date;

3. The name and specification of the goods;

4. The quantity and tax amount to be transferred.

5. Other matters necessary to certify the amount of customs duties, as determined by the Commissioner of the Customs Service.

Notice of the refund of customs duties, etc. on raw materials for export

§ 1-1-2 (Definition of Terms) The definitions of terms used in this Notice shall be as follows:

1. The term "certificate of average tax amount" means a document proving the average amount of tax per unit of raw materials for export (hereinafter referred to as "certificate of average tax amount") by dividing the aggregate of the items (H or 10 unit) of raw materials for export imported each month by the quantity;

2. The term "certificate of tax payment on basic raw materials" means a document attesting the payable amount of the raw materials for export supplied by the local letter of credit, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "certificate of tax payment");

3. The term "division certificate" means a document that proves a certificate of import declaration, a certificate of ordinary duty, or a certificate of tax payment in installments (hereinafter referred to as "certificate") in order to certify the amount of tax payable for the goods supplied in the original condition of import or purchase;

Article 4-3-1 (Persons subject to Issuance of Subdivision) Cases where a decentralization may be issued pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Decree shall be as follows:

1. Where raw materials are transferred in the state of import or purchase of raw materials to an exporter or a producer of export goods or a person who produces interim raw materials to be used in producing export goods;

2. Where all or part of the goods, the Pyeongtaek certificate of which has been issued pursuant to the provisions of Article 4-1-2, are transferred as referred to in subparagraph 1 without manufacturing and processing them;

3. Where a person who has acquired raw materials provided for in Article 4-2-1 (1) transfers them as provided for in subparagraph 1 in the state of purchase;

* Note *

1) Divided certificate means a document evidencing that the customs duties, etc. issued by the customs collector are divided in order to certify the payable amount of customs duties, etc. issued by the customs collector in order to refund the customs duties, etc. on raw materials imported or purchased under Article 9(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Refund of Customs, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export; Article 10(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and Article 4-3-1 of the Notice on the Handling of Customs, etc. Levied on Raw Materials for Export;