Seoul High Court 2009Nu6812 (209.03)

early 2006west2547 ( December 13, 2006)

An input tax amount of a gold bullion exporter who has undergone a bomb shall not be deducted in violation of the principle of good faith.

In a case where an exporter of gold bullion trades with the knowledge that there was an illegal transaction at the entire phase, seeking the deduction and refund of an input tax amount cannot be easily accepted in light of a common sense of justice and ethics, which is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, and thus, it is not permissible.

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2011Nu18061 Revocation of Value-Added Tax Imposition Disposition, etc.

AAD Co., Ltd.

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap10976 Decided February 10, 2009

September 20, 2011

October 25, 2011

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. As to the Plaintiff on October 10, 2005:

(1) the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 29,949,480 for the first period of 2003;

(2) The amount exceeding 630,830,834 won of the disposition of imposition of value-added tax for the second period of 2003 KRW 2,376,349,204;

(3) Of the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 4,727,311,945 for the first period of 2004 exceeding KRW 2,379,151,619;

(4) Of the imposition disposition of Value-Added Tax for the second term of 2004 KRW 343,612,111, the portion exceeding 110,716,136 won

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

On October 10, 2005, the Defendant revoked the first term portion of value-added tax 29,949,480 won in 2003, the second term portion of value-added tax 2,376,349,204 won in 2003, the first term portion of tax 4,727,311,945 won in 2004, the second term portion of tax 2004, and the second term portion of tax 343,612,111 won in 204, and the refusal of refund of value-added tax 936,498,683 won in 204 (the Plaintiff changed from the trial to the reduction of the amount of claim for revocation following the Defendant’s second term correction).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Details of imposition, etc.;

A. On June 5, 2003, the Plaintiff is a company established with the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale sales, manufacturing and wholesale sales of precious metals and so on, and wholesale and retail sales, trade business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff reported the input tax amount for gold bullion purchase tax amounting to the total amount of KRW 71,063,508,950 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”) received from the former purchaser (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction”) in the first to 2003 of the Value-Added Tax Return in 2003 or 271 of the year 204, after deducting the input tax amount for the gold bullion purchase tax amounting to the total amount of KRW 71,063,50 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant tax invoice”).

C. On October 8, 2004 to July 15, 2005, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, upon conducting a tax investigation with the Plaintiff, reported the instant tax invoice as a false tax invoice and notified the Defendant so that the input tax amount may not be deducted.

D. On October 10, 2005, the Defendant imposed value-added tax amounting to KRW 36,312,720 for the first term portion in 2003, KRW 2713,567,50 for the first term portion in 2003, KRW 567,50 for the first term portion in 2004, KRW 5,107, KRW 111,870 for the first term portion in 2004, KRW 459,681,580 for the second term portion in 2004, KRW 35,394, KRW 834 for the first term portion in 203, KRW 2,808, KRW 409, KRW 423, KRW 204 for the second term portion in 203, KRW 5,104 for the second term portion in 204, KRW 105, KRW 204 for the second term portion in 2005, KRW 364,25484.

E. After that, on June 24, 2011, the Defendant revoked ex officio the portion of additional tax imposed on the failure to enter a tax invoice on the grounds of the issuance of the false tax invoice on the grounds of the imposition of the above value-added tax; the amount of additional tax imposed on the first quarter of 2003; the first quarter of 2003; the second quarter of 2,376,349,204; the first quarter of 2003; the amount of 4,727,311,945; the second quarter of 2004; and the second quarter of 204,343,612,111 for the second quarter of 204 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant imposition disposition”).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; evidence No. 1-6; evidence No. 2-1 through 4; evidence No. 3; evidence No. 4-1, 2; evidence No. 5-1 through 3; evidence No. 1-4; evidence No. 2-1, 2; evidence No. 63-1 through 4; evidence No. 64-1, 2; evidence No. 65-7; and the purport of the whole pleadings];

2. Whether the instant disposition, etc. was lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

Since the Plaintiff actually purchased gold bullion from the customer of the instant case and paid the price in full, the instant tax invoice is a normal transaction. Moreover, the Plaintiff purchased gold bullion from the customer of the instant case and exported it to the “SYHold Poseded” (hereinafter “overseas corporation”) located in Hong Kong, and did not negotiate with the taxation conversion company (the “SYHold Pos”), the supplier, or the overseas corporation, etc. to unlawfully refund the value-added tax.

Therefore, the instant disposition, etc., based on the premise that the instant tax invoice is false, is unlawful.

(2) Defendant

The instant transaction is merely a nominal transaction, and it is difficult to view the instant gold bullion as a supply of goods subject to value-added tax. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s taking the instant gold bullion out to a foreign country is merely a formal disguised export for the purpose of unlawful acquisition of national tax revenue by means of converting the tax-free gold bullion through a wide-scale carbon company into tax revenue by abusing the zero-rate tax rate system and the input tax deduction system recognized for exporters rather than normal goods export

Therefore, regarding the abuse of the zero tax rate system, the benefit of the input tax deduction should not be allowed under the good faith principle. Thus, the instant disposition, etc. is legitimate.

(b) Related statutes;

[Attachment 3] The entry is as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From June 18, 2003 to October 5, 2004, the Plaintiff purchased gold bullions more than 132 times from the transaction partner of the instant case, as described in attached Form 1, and processed and exported them to a foreign corporation as it is in the status of gold bullion or as a product such as 24K and 22K gps, etc.

(2) The details of payments made by the Plaintiff to each of the transaction parties in connection with the instant transaction are written on the Plaintiff’s bank account (Account Number: 1005-300-000), 303-01-0000, 022-22-00000, 0000, and the foreign exchange bank account (Account Number: 02-22-00000), and the foreign currency deposit account (Account Number: 1081-300-000), 303-71-00000, foreign currency bank account (Account Number: 022-JS-0000).

(3) In the middle stage of a series of entire transactions from which gold bullion is imported and exported (hereinafter referred to as “the entire transactions in this case”), a gold bullion exempt from value-added tax is supplied as gold bullion subject to value-added tax, and a tax invoice is prepared and delivered, and a transaction in which a so-called wide carbon company exists that does not pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax (attached Form 2).

(4) However, according to the transport note, etc. of the instant entire transaction, gold bullion was exported to a foreign corporation on the date of import or within 2-3 days from the date of import after the import of gold bullion through the trading process of 6-7 stages, and there were many cases where there were many cases where the moving time between the companies located far from a considerable distance in the transaction transfer of the instant case was considerably short to 5-15 minutes, and there was also a case where it was revealed that gold bullion was moved from the Plaintiff to the importer after the settlement of funds from the previous transaction partners.

(5) In the entire transaction of this case, the Plaintiff, who is the exporter, was either issued a "certificate of installments necessary for refund of customs duties" or did not receive refund of customs duties, and in most cases, the serial numbers of gold bullion were not stated, and the same gold bullion was exported.

(6) Of the 95 exports, some of the 95 exports had been made at a lower price than the domestic market price at the time of the international market price, and the export price was lower than the purchase price in the four trades.

(7) Under the export contract amounting to 37 items among the 51 items exported by the Plaintiff in 2005, the consignee appears to have mistakenly stated that "Mr. Kwon (which means an overseas corporation as an agent)" and there were many cases where a foreign corporation actually remitted to the Plaintiff the amount of USD 20 - 69 less than the amount specified in the export contract.

(8) On the other hand, according to the NY’s statement of delivery of processed sales tax invoices (Evidence A 118) prepared as a result of the tax investigation conducted by the head of the Seoul Regional Office with respect to NY, the Plaintiff was not included in the details of the processed sales.

(9) around December 2005, NY was subject to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office's disposition that "no suspicion of violation of the Act (tax evasion) and the suspicion of aiding and abetting the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax evasion)".

(10) The Seoul Regional Tax Office stated that "the content of the investigation, etc. by items of investigation, etc. after conducting a tax investigation with respect to the details of transactions between KJ from January 2003 to March 2007" by the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office stated that "no items of investigation are applicable, and no items of investigation are recovered."

(11) On March 6, 2008, NewA, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was subject to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office's suspension of indictment on charges of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 10 through Gap evidence 109; Gap evidence 116-1, 3; Eul evidence 118 through Eul evidence 121; Eul evidence 4 through Eul evidence 12; Eul evidence 21 through Eul evidence 24; Eul evidence 27 through Eul evidence 37; Eul evidence 39 through Eul evidence 47; Eul evidence 50 through Eul evidence 52; Eul evidence 59; Eul evidence 62; Eul evidence 62; the inquiry results with respect to the Commissioner of the Korea Customs Service of the first instance court; the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice

Article 1(1)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8142, Dec. 30, 206; hereinafter the same) provides that "the supply of goods as value-added tax taxable items" shall be deemed delivery or transfer by all contractual or legal reasons. The delivery or transfer of goods under Article 6(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of transferring authority to use or consume goods, regardless of the actual value-added tax, on the following grounds:

(2) Whether the principle of good faith is applied

(A) Relevant legal principles

국세기본법(2010.1. 1. 법률 제9911호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제15조는 "납세자가 그 의무를 이행함에 있어서는 신의에 쫓아 성실히 하여야 한다. 세무공무원이 그 직무를 수행함에 있어서도 또한 같다"라고 규정함으로써 신의성실의 원칙이 조세법 분야에서도 기본적 지도이념이 되어야 함을 천명하고 있다. 기존의 법을 구체화하거나 이를 보충하고, 또 성문법의 경직성을 보완하는 등의 기능을 통해 법의 운용에 구체적 타당성을 확보할 수 있게 하는 이 신의성실의 원칙은 조세법 영역에서도 조세법률주의의 허점을 보정하는 역할을 하므로 비록 민사법 영역에 비하여 그 적용범위가 다소 제한적일 것이기는 하나, 조세법 규정을 개별 사안에 그대로 적용하면 보편적인 정의관과 윤리관에 비추어 도저히 용납할 수 없는 부당한 결과가 초래됨으로써 오히려 건전한 법질서에 역행하는 것으로 볼 특별한 사정이 있다면 신의성실의 원칙에 의해 예외적으로 그 규정의 적용을 제한 또는 배제할 수 있을 것이다. 이러한 원칙은 부가가치세에 관한 법률관계에도 적용될 수 있다. 부가가치세법(2010.1. 1. 법률 제9915호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제15조는 사업자가 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 때에는 그 공급가액에 관한 부가가치세를 그 공급을 받는 자로부터 정수하여야 한다고 규정하고, 제17조 제1항은 사업자가 납부하여야 할 부가가치세액은 매출세액에서 매입세액을 공제한 금액으로 하고 매출세액을 초과하는 매입세액은 환급받을 세액으로 한다고 규정함으로써 이른바 전단계세액공제 제도를 채택 하고 있다. 이는 최종소비자에 이르기 전의 각 거래단계에서 재화 또는 용역을 공급하는 사업자가 그 공급을 받는 사업자로부터 매출세액을 징수하여 국가에 납부하고, 그 세액을 징수당한 사업자는 이를 국가로부터 매입세액으로 공제ㆍ환급받는 과정을 통하여 그 세액의 부담을 다음 단계의 사업자에게 차례로 전가하여 궁극적으로 최종소비자 에게 이를 부담시키는 것을 근간으로 한다(대법원 1999.11. 12. 선고 99다33984 판결 등 참조). 이러한 구조에서는 각 거래단계에서 징수되는 매출세액이 그에 대응하는 매입세액의 공제ㆍ환급을 위한 재원이 되므로 그 매출세액이 제대로 국가에 납부되지 않으면 부가가치세의 체제를 유지하는 것이 불가능하게 된다. 따라서 만일 연속되는 일련의 거래에 있어 어느 한 단계의 악의적 사업자가 당초부터 부가가치세를 포탈하려고 마음먹고, 오로지 부가가치세를 포탈하는 방법에 의해서만 이익이 창출되고 이를 포탈하지 않으면 오히려 손해만 보는 비정상적인 거래 (이하 '부정거래'라 한다)를 시도하여 그가 징수한 부가가치세를 납부하지 않는 경우, 그 후에 이어지는 거래단계에 수출업자와 같이 영세율 적용으로 매출세액의 부담 없이 매입세액을 공제ㆍ환급받을 수 있는 사업자가 있다면 국가는 부득이 다른 조세수입을 재원으로 삼아 그 환급 등을 실시할 수밖에 없을 것인바, 이러한 결과는 소극적인 조세수입의 공백을 넘어 적극적인 국고의 유출에 해당되는 것이어서 부가가치세 제도 자체의 훼손을 넘어 그 부담이 일반 국민에게 전가됨으로써 전반적인 조세체계에까지 심각한 폐해가 미치게 된다 할 것이다. 물론 위와 같은 사유가 있다 하여도 부정거래의 존재를 전혀 알 수 없는 상황에서 거래를 한 수출업자라면 원칙적으로 부가가치세법이 정하는 바에 따라 매입세액을 공제ㆍ환급받을 수 있음을 부인하여서는 안 된다. 그러나 수출업자가 그 전단계에 부정거래가 있었음을 알면서도 그 기회를 틈타 자신의 이익을 도모하고자 거래에 나섰고, 또한 그의 거래 이익도 결국 앞서의 부정거래로부터 연유하는 것이며, 나아가 그의 거래 참여가 부정거래의 판로를 확보해 줌으로써 궁극적으로 부정거래를 가능하게 한 결정적인 요인이 되었다면, 이는 그 전제가 되는 매입세액 공제ㆍ환급제도를 악용하여 부당한 이득을 추구하는 행위라고 할 것이므로 그러한 수출업자에게까지 다른 조세수입을 재원으로 삼아 매입세액을 공제ㆍ환급해 주는 것은 부정거래로부터 연유하는 이익을 국고에 의하여 보장해 주는 격이 됨은 물론 위에서 본 바와 같은 전반적인 조세 체계에 미치는 심각한 폐해를 막을 수도 없다. 그러므로 이러한 경우의 수출업자가 매입세액의 공제ㆍ환급을 구하는 것은 보편적인 정의관과 윤리관에 비추어 도저히 용납될 수 없다 할 것이므로 이는 국세기본법 제15조 소정의 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 것으로서 허용될 수 없다고 보아야 한다. 이러한 법리는 공명의 관점과 결과의 중대성 및 보편적 정의감에 비추어 수출업자가 중대한 과실로 인하여 그와 같은 부정거래가 있었음을 알지 못한 경우, 즉 악의적 사업자와의 관계로 보아 수출업자가 조금만 주의를 기울였다면 이를 충분히 알 수 있었음에도 거의 고의에 가까운 정도로 주의의무를 현저히 위반하여 이를 알지 못한 경우에도 마찬가지로 적용된다고 봄이 상당하고, 그 수출업자와 부정거래를 한 악의적 사업자와 간에 구체적인 공모 또는 공범관계가 있은 경우로 한정할 것은 아니다. 그리고 위와 같은 경우 악의적 사업자와 상호 의존관계에 있는 수출업자가 국가로부터 매입세액을 공제ㆍ환급받음으로써 국고의 유출이 현실화되므로 이러한 수출업자에 대한 제재로서 그에 대한 매입세액의 공제ㆍ환급을 부인한다고 해서 악의적 사업자의 부가가치세 포탈에 대한 책임을 합리적 이유 없이 수출업자에게 전가하는 것이라고 할 수도 없다(대법원 2011. 1. 20. 선고 2009두13474 전원합의체 판결 등 참조).

(B) Determination

According to the above evidence and the facts, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that there were 20 years old sales tax invoices of this case for the purpose of manufacturing and retail business, and that the Plaintiff’s sales of gold bullion was unaware of the fact that there were 0 years old sales tax invoices of this case for the purpose of deducting the input tax amount from the first day of establishment of 100 million won, and that the Plaintiff’s sales of gold bullion would not be subject to the refund of 20 years old sales tax invoices of this case. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff could not be subject to the refund of the input tax amount for the purpose of deducting the input tax amount from 0 years old sales, and that the Plaintiff could not be subject to the refund of 2 years old sales tax invoices of this case for the purpose of deducting the input tax amount from 0 years old sales, and that the Plaintiff could not be subject to the refund of the input tax amount for the purpose of deducting the input tax amount from 3 years old sales, including the exchange price of gold bullion.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the portion of the tax invoice on the issues of this case in the disposition of this case shall be deducted from the input tax amount. The portion of the tax invoice on the remaining transactions of this case shall be zero won for the first period of 2003 by deducting the input tax amount and calculating the legitimate value-added tax amount. The portion of the tax invoice on the remaining transactions of this case shall be 2,379,151,619 won for the first period of 2003 by 630,830,834 won as stated in the legitimate tax calculation sheet, and the portion of the tax invoice for the first period of 2003 by 2,379,151,619 won for the second period of 204 by 110,716,136 won for the second period of 203 and 29,480 won for the second period of value-added tax for 203, 376, 2049, 204.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the defendant's appeal and changing the judgment of the court of first instance as above.