Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap2280 ( October 15, 2012)

Seocho 2010west 1389 (201.05.09)

The deduction of input tax from an exporter of gold bullion does not constitute "the case where national tax is deducted by fraud or other improper means."

In addition, since gold bullion was actually distributed and exported from the importer of the gold bullion of this case to the plaintiff, who is the exporter, and it was properly issued for each transaction phase, it cannot be said that applying the exclusion period for imposition of five years is contrary to the principle of good faith.

Article 26-2 of the National Tax Basic Act

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu21644, revocation of disposition of imposing value-added tax, etc.

AA General Commercial Corporation

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap2280 decided June 15, 2012

January 24, 2013

February 21, 2013

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 KRW 00 on February 1, 2010 for the first period of 2003, KRW 000 on the second period of 2003, and KRW 000 on the first period of 204, KRW 000 on the corporate tax for the business year of 2003, and KRW 000 on the corporate tax for the business year of 2004, respectively, is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the court's decision is as follows, and the decision on the argument that the defendant maintains in the appellate court is added as follows, and this court's decision is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The phrase "(299Do4517) '(2009Do4517) '(2009Do4517)' below the 8th day(s) '(2009Do4517)' and the phrase 16th day(s) through 16th day(s) are as follows.

[This case's gold bullion transaction constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, and this case's tax invoice received accordingly constitutes legitimate tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and it cannot be claimed as input tax deduction or refund by the principle of good faith." This case's tax invoice under Article 12-3 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be viewed as "where the deducted tax amount is collected due to non-performance of obligation, etc." Meanwhile, Article 12-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "the date following the due date for filing a return or filing of the tax base and amount of national tax is 0.0 years for each taxable period, and Article 19 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "20 years for the tax base and amount of tax for 20 years for 20 years before the expiration of the tax period, and Article 3 (1) of the same Act provides that "20 years from 10.3 years before the expiration of the tax period for 20 years from 10.3 years to 3 months before the end.0.

The 17th day below the 7th day below the “EE” is regarded as the “EE Cross”.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In the appellate court, the defendant asserts that the exclusion period of imposition of value-added tax and corporate tax for the business year 2003 should be applied to the case where the plaintiff's act constitutes an exporter who wants to receive part of the output tax evaded by a malicious entrepreneur as a profit by taking advantage of the malicious entrepreneur's illegal transaction for the purpose of evading the output tax, and thus, the plaintiff's input tax deduction should not be permitted against the principle of good faith. In this case, the plaintiff's act is not subject to the provision of the Framework Act on National Taxes as to the exclusion period of imposition under the principle of good faith, and the exclusion period of imposition should be applied to the case where the 10-year exclusion period of imposition is applied or the return of tax base is not filed by the statutory return period.

However, even if the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction is not permitted in violation of the good faith principle on the grounds as alleged by the Defendant, and since it was actually distributed and exported gold bullion from the importer of the gold bullion to the Plaintiff who is the exporter, and the Plaintiff issued the tax invoices and other evidential documents at each transaction stage, the Plaintiff’s act of receiving value-added tax deduction under the tax invoice of this case does not constitute “in a case where national tax is deducted by fraud or other unlawful act” and thus, the ten-year exclusion period under Article 26-2(1)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be applied, and as long as the Plaintiff filed the tax base return with the effect that the Plaintiff is entitled to the tax deduction by the filing deadline of the tax base under the Value-Added Tax Act, the seven-year exclusion period under Article 26-2(1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be applied, and the five-year exclusion period under Article 26-2(3) of the same Act cannot be deemed as contrary to the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1977

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the appeal of the defendant is dismissed as it is groundless.