early 208west2387 (209.09)

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

In full view of all the evidence submitted by the tax authorities, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that gold bullion supplied and the CPU were aware of the fact that it was used in the process of issuing a purchase certificate, or that the gold bullion supplied were not used as a raw material for export and converted into taxable goods by a large-scale carbon business in Korea.

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

1. The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 202 against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2008, KRW 2,406,457,460 for the second period of 202, value-added tax for the first period of 2003, KRW 12,484,867,960 for the first period of 203, value-added tax for the second period of 203, KRW 5,430,60 for the second period of 203, value-added tax for the first period of 204, KRW 135,106,970 for the first period of 204, KRW 642,210,00 for the corporate tax belonging to the business year of 203, KRW 134,595,580 for the corporate tax belonging to the business

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was established for export and import business and general wholesale business on August 19, 2002 for the purpose of export and import business and general wholesale business, and was engaged in gold bullion (referring to gold bullion (referring to gold with a net level of at least 995/1,000 in the state of raw materials, such as gold bullion, gold ingot, and V) and CPU (Cent UN, computer processing system) and its export and import business and wholesale business. The Plaintiff completed the registration of dissolution on February 25, 2004 and the registration of completion of liquidation on May 6, 2004.

B. The defendant was notified by the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office of taxation of taxation data that the plaintiff issued and delivered a false tax invoice without actual trade, and conducted a tax investigation with the plaintiff. ① From August 2002 to June 200, the defendant: BB.com Co., Ltd.; CCC Co., Ltd.; DDA metal Co., Ltd.; FG Co., Ltd.; and GGco Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "this case's gold bullion sales"); the plaintiff's sales of gold bullion Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "this case's gold bullion sales"); the plaintiff's sales of gold bullion Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "gold bullion purchase certificates"); the plaintiff's sales of gold bullion Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Co. 4"); and the plaintiff's sales of gold bullion Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "gold bullion purchase certificates"); the plaintiff's sales of gold bullion Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Co., Ltd.); the plaintiff's purchase certificates and sales of gold bullion Co. (hereinafter referred to the "U sale certificates").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's principal

The Plaintiff imported gold bullion from No. 271 to No. 1, 2003, while importing the CPU in the second period of 2003, and sold zero-rate gold bullion through a purchase certificate issued lawfully by the head of a foreign exchange bank. From 2003, gold bullion import could not be permitted, and thus, made normal transactions, such as purchase and export of gold bullion in the Republic of Korea, such as conversion of gold bullion into the business for export. Nevertheless, the instant disposition that the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff is unlawful on the Plaintiff by deeming that the transaction of gold bullion was conducted through a false purchase certificate prepared within a short period after the Defendant purchased gold bullion through zero-rate or zero-rate tax exemption and sold the total amount of profit within the short period of time, and then sold the gold bullion as tax invoice prepared differently from the fact under a public invitation with the major coal company.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(a)a note related to full import transactions;

The Plaintiff offered gold bullion and the CPU as zero tax rate by means of the instant purchase certificates issued by false documents after the Plaintiff conspiredd to evade value-added tax with the instant sales office, etc., and supplied gold bullion and the CPU as zero-rate tax rate with knowledge that the Plaintiff would not use gold bullion supplied by the Plaintiff as a raw material for export and be used for the evasion of value-added tax by converting the gold bullion and the goods supplied by the CPU into taxable goods in the Republic of Korea, and thus, transactions with the Plaintiff

(B) Notice related to the Plaintiff’s export transaction

① The Plaintiff, in collusion with the instant purchasing agency, etc., prepared financial data such as the purchase price paid through the Internet banking, etc., with the same appearance as the purchase price, without actually purchasing gold bullion. As such, the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice.

② The instant purchase headquarters is merely a transaction party in the form of forming a nominal trading relationship as an intermediary for a bomb business, and thus did not actually acquire the ownership of gold bullion. Accordingly, the instant tax invoice issued by the instant purchase headquarters, which is merely a transaction party that cannot be seen as a supplier capable of supplying gold bullion to the Plaintiff, constitutes a different tax invoice between the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice.

③ Even if a transaction party of a heavy coal business sells gold bullion as a taxable transaction, it is nothing more than the actual value of the proceeds from sale that the transaction party did not intend to collect the value-added tax from the other party and to pay it to the State. Nevertheless, the transaction party of a heavy coal business shall classify the supply value into value-added tax in order to enable the other party to deduct the input tax amount. The Plaintiff entered the value-added tax separately from the false supply value, since the Plaintiff conspired to evade the value-added tax with the large coal business entity located in the location of the supplier of the gold bullion in this case

④ The Plaintiff conspiredd to evade value-added tax with a bombing company, and traded with the instant purchasing entity. Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s transaction with the instant purchasing entity is a serious criminal act that acquired the national treasury by abusing the zero tax rate system and undermines the foundation of the value-added tax system, the Plaintiff is not allowed to deduct the input tax amount pursuant to the principle of good faith.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From around 2002 to 2004, by abusing the zero-rate or tax exemption system among precious metal companies located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, gold bullion was imported and distributed through various stages of zero-rate or tax exemption was converted into the so-called so-called "large carbon business" and then, again, the imported company exported gold bullion through multiple limited wholesalers, and then exported the gold bullion to distribute it as a taxable amount. The imported company is entitled to the value-added tax paid upon the import of gold bullion, and the excessive carbon company did not pay the value-added tax, and the exporter extended the so-called so-called "large coal business" to receive the value-added tax that has not been paid by the large coal company.

(2) Plaintiff’s import transaction

원고는 2002. 8.경부터 2003. 6.경까지 금지금 수입업체로서 주식회사 QQQQ 등의 중개로 홍콩의 NNNNN으로부터 이 사건 매출 금지금을 수입하여 이 사건 금지금 매출처에게 영세율로 매도하고 수입 당시 납부하였던 부가가치세를 환급받았는데, 이 사건 매출 금지금은 원고에 의하여 수입된 날에 6-7단계의 거래를 거 쳐 대부분 당일 또는 그 익일에 수출업체에 의하여 다시 수출되었다. 원고는 또한 2003. 7.경부터 2003. 12.경까지 CPU 수입업체로서 싱가포르의 RR테크놀로지로부터 CPU를 수입하여 이 사건 CPU 매출처에게 영세율로 매도하고 수입 당시 납부하였던 부가가치세를 환급받았다.

The Plaintiff had a transportation business entity UUcom, etc. transport the instant gold bullion imported from NN to BB seacom, etc. as a sales agent of the instant gold bullion. The Plaintiff imported Singapore’s RteN from Singapore’s RteN to Incheon Airport through the Rod Air Transport, and had it transport the instant gold bullion from Incheon Airport to the CPU sales office.

(3) The plaintiff's export transaction

원고는 2003. 7.경부터 2004. 4.경까지 금지금 수출업체로서 이 사건 매입처로부터 이 사건 매입 금지금을 과세로 매입하여 대부분 당일 또는 그 익일에 주식회사 QQQQ의 중개로 NNNNN에게 수출하고 매입세액을 환급 또는 공제받았는데, 이 사건 매입 금지금은 수입업자에 의하여 수입된 날에 6~7단계의 거래를 거쳐 대부분 당일 또는 그 익일에 원고에 의하여 수출되었다.

The Plaintiff exported the gold bullion purchased from the instant purchasing entity to NNN in Hong Kong through the SS Global SS Global business, a transportation company.

(4) With respect to the transaction of the instant gold bullion, etc. imported by the Plaintiff, all of the transaction stages from the Plaintiff to the exporter was completed in the reverse order, and with respect to the transaction of the instant gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff, all of the transaction stages from the importer to the Plaintiff were completed in the reverse order.

(5) Most of the sales gold bullion, etc., imported by the Plaintiff, and the purchase prohibition amount of the instant gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff, are related to the heavy carbon business, which sells at a price lower than their purchase prices (However, the value-added tax plus the value-added tax is higher than the purchase price, i.e., the price for supply) and fails to fulfill the liability to pay the value-added tax by means

(6) Of the instant gold bullion sales offices, BBB..com, DDD companies, and FF companies were accused of tax evasion, and the instant CPU sales office discontinued its business as it was unable to obtain refund recognition from the Seocho Tax Office in connection with the trade of the CPU purchased from the Plaintiff, and in addition, the instant CPU sales office discontinued its business, and the instant gold bullion sales office, which purchased gold bullion again from the instant gold bullion sales office, filed a complaint against the tax evasion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 6 through 40 evidence, Eul 3 through 9, 11 through 14, and 19 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Part concerning the Plaintiff’s import transaction

The issue of whether an importer actually exported goods supplied to his/her business partner cannot affect the application of zero tax rate at the import transaction stage, and even if a purchase confirmation under the name of the head of a foreign exchange bank presented by his/her business partner was issued based on a false export contract, it cannot be deemed as invalid as a matter of course, barring special circumstances, such as where an importer, who is a supplier of goods, knew that there was a defect in the issuance of a purchase certificate, he/she cannot immediately exclude the supply of goods based on such purchase confirmation from those subject to zero-rate tax rate application only on the ground of the defect in the above issuance process. In such cases, the special circumstances, such as the existence of the taxation requirement and the legality of the tax imposition disposition, must be proved by the tax authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du15490, Jun. 12, 2008).

In full view of all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, including evidence Nos. 4 through 14, 19, etc., it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff conspired to evade value-added tax with the sales agent of this case, sales intermediary, and sales intermediary at the time of selling the gold bullion, etc., or that the Plaintiff was defective in the process of issuing the purchase certificate of this case, or that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the gold bullion supplied and the CPU would be used for the evasion of value-added tax after converting the gold bullion supplied into taxable goods by a bombing company, not for export purposes, and was used for the evasion of value-added tax, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the disposition of this case denying the application of zero-rate tax by deeming the transaction of the gold bullion

(2) The part concerning the Plaintiff’s export transaction

(A) As to the assertion (i) through (iii) that it is another tax invoice.

Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "the supply of goods as taxable object of value-added tax" and Article 6(1) provides that "the delivery or transfer of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods 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 acts causing the transfer of authority to use and consume goods, regardless of the actual profit gained. In this case, the issue of whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined individually and specifically by taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose, process and mode of the transaction of the transaction, the source of profit, and the payment relation of the price, etc. of the specific transaction, on the ground that the specific transaction is a nominal transaction for which no actual delivery or transfer of the goods is delivered or transferred, and the tax invoice received in the transaction process constitutes "the burden of proof" under Article 17(2)1-2(a) of the Value-Added Tax Act.

As seen earlier, in the case of the instant gold bullion, the actual circulation of the gold bullion from the importer to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff received the tax invoice of this case after receiving the gold bullion from the purchaser of this case and paying the price, and further, as long as it is acknowledged that the gold bullion was exported, it is difficult to conclude that the instant gold bullion transaction is not a supply of goods subject to value-added tax solely on the pretext of the transaction that only received the gold bullion by issuing the tax invoice or the appearance of the gold bullion that is delivered and paid the gold bullion for the purpose of disguised trade in the actual transaction, solely on the basis of the fact that there is a separate entity at the intermediate stage of the transaction between the import and export of the gold bullion of this case. Thus, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff, in collusion with the purchaser of this case, did not actually purchase the gold bullion, provided that the gold bullion was produced with the appearance of the goods subject to value-added tax, such as the actual purchase price, or that the purchaser of this case was merely a transactional form.

In addition, considering all evidence submitted by the Defendant, including evidence Nos. 4 through 14 and 19, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered the value-added tax separately from the false value of supply after the Plaintiff conspired to evade the value-added tax with the heavy coal business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, there is no other evidence to regard the tax invoice of this case as falling under a different tax invoice from the fact.

(B) As to the assertion that the principle of good faith is violated (No.4)

In order to apply the principle of trust and good faith to taxpayers, there is an objectively contradictory behavior of taxpayers, the behavior was derived from a taxpayer’s severe act of worship, and the trust of tax authorities resulting therefrom must be protected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du14865, Apr. 23, 2009). In full view of all the evidence submitted by the Defendant, including evidence Nos. 4 through 14, 19, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff conspired to evade value-added tax with the gas companies or that there is an objectively contradictory behavior against the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the instant disposition that applied the penalty tax in which the input tax amount was not deducted by deeming the instant tax invoice as a “unlawful tax invoice” is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.