Whether or not it has actually purchased gold now;

It is presumed that the tax invoice is issued falsely without actual transaction and the related testimony alone cannot be reversed, so the disposition imposed on the transaction is legitimate.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant's imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second period of December 31, 2006 against the plaintiff 80,209,210 won, value-added tax for the second period of December 31, 2001, value-added tax for the first period of January 2002, 65,284,890 won, value-added tax for the second period of 2002, value-added tax for 76,170,610 won, value-added tax for the second period of 203, 55,268,020 won, value-added tax for the second period of 39,193,960 won, and corporate tax for the second period of 203, 205,842,240 won, 256,635,600 won, value-added tax for the business year of 203, 116,060 won, value-added tax for the business year of 2004, 2083.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a corporation established on March 3, 2001 under the name of ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ”, and closed on December 31, 2006 and closed on December 2001, value-added tax and corporate tax for two years from 2001 to 203, (1) ○ ○ ○ ○ 201 (hereinafter referred to as “○ ○ ○ ○ ”) shall be the aggregate of the supply value of 371,597,162, 315,691,183, 385,674, 917, 2003, the aggregate of supply value of 203, the supply value of 204, the aggregate of the supply value of 203, the supply value of 204, 205, the total of 360, 204, the supply value of 205, 294, 2004.

B. On December 31, 2006, 2006, the Defendant deemed that the purchase tax invoice of this case was issued without a real transaction, and determined the amount of the input tax for the second period of 2001, value-added tax for the Plaintiff, KRW 80,209,210, value-added tax for the second period of 2002, KRW 65,284,890, value-added tax for the second period of 2002, KRW 76,170,610, value-added tax for the second period of 202, KRW 5,268,020, value-added tax for the first period of 203, KRW 39,193,960, KRW 39,193,960 for the second period of 203, KRW 205,2084, KRW 286, KRW 206, KRW 26366,206, KRW 2006, etc.

C. In addition, on May 28, 2007, the Defendant deemed that the purchase tax invoice of the instant 2 was issued without a real transaction on the ground that the Plaintiff was also an enterprise accused of the data, and thus, the Defendant did not deduct the input tax amount for the first quarter of 2003, and issued an additional correction and notification of KRW 5,983,930 for the second quarter of 2003.

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on June 18, 2007 on the disposition as of December 31, 2006, but was dismissed on September 28, 2007, and filed an appeal on the disposition as of August 22, 2007 as of May 28, 2007, but was dismissed on November 29, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul 1, 2, and 6

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the tax invoices of this case was actually purchased and received by the Plaintiff from ○○ Fund and ○○ corporation. Thus, each of the above dispositions based on the premise that the transaction on the tax invoices of this case is a processing transaction is unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The amount of ○○○○ was established and operated on January 16, 2001 and operated on July 2, 2002 by Kim Ho-ho, who had worked as the regular business of ○○○○, issued 27,081,127,397 tax invoices of KRW 127,081,127,397 to 2004 as a result of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation, and issued 24,852 tax invoices of KRW 62,732,92,922,178 from July 2002 to June 2004 without actual sales, and filed a complaint with the Seoul District Public Prosecutor’s Office.

2) In the process of the investigation as above from around July 2001 to June 2004, Kim○ issued a detailed statement of sales tax invoices issued by ○○ Fund from around 2001 to around 2004, and stated to the effect that “○ Fund issued 2,762 copies of sales tax invoices of KRW 127,081,127,397 in total without real transaction to 24,852 in total, and issued 62,732,922,178 in total without real transaction from around July 2002 to June 2004.”

3) At the time of the above investigation, Kim ○ issued a false tax invoice to a business operator during the taxable period from January 2001 to January 2004 without actual transaction, and the details thereof are as follows. The principal, as a de facto representative of the said legal entity, prepares a confirmation letter stating that all of the above contents will not be true and responsible, and according to the details of issuance of the sales tax invoice attached to the said confirmation, the sales tax invoice between the Plaintiff and the ○○○○ stated that the transaction related to the 1 purchase tax invoice was processed.

4) As a result of the above investigation, the specific method of the processing transaction made by ○○○, an employee, received the price on the tax invoice from ○○○○○, which was an employee, and made the payment on behalf of the customer in the name of the customer, in order to pretend that the transaction had been actually conducted by issuing the sales tax invoice to the customer in need of the tax invoice without selling at present.

5) On December 25, 2005, under the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, he was sentenced to a three-year conviction of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Western District Court on December 25, 2005 on the crime of preparing a false sales tax invoice (the tax invoice listed in the attached Table No. 206No62 delivered on October 18, 2006 and the tax invoice No. 2006Do7681 delivered on February 15, 2007, including that ○○ was issued a tax invoice according to the weight of the amount indicated in the tax invoice) as if he did not sell gold, even though he did not receive a certain fee and sold gold. The above conclusion was finalized through the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006No62 delivered on October 18, 2006 and the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2006Do7681 delivered on February 15, 2007.

6) The above employee’s maximum implied account deposited some of the tax invoices of this case into a bank account in several times under the Plaintiff’s name (the “○○○ prior to the change of trade name”).

7) After the opening of April 15, 200, the business place was changed five times from the opening of April 15, 200 to the closure of the business on June 30, 2006, and the actual operator Kim Il-sung operated several gold-processing companies, including ○○○○, which was accused of having traded data related to ○○○○ Fund. Meanwhile, in relation to the instant 2 purchase tax invoice transaction, the cash withdrawn from ○○ Fund was deposited in the Plaintiff’s name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each of the evidence, evidence No. 4, No. 10, No. 32 (including above number), and the purport of the whole pleading

C. Determination

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing tax shall be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirement have been presumed in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an unlawful disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement unless the other party proves that the facts in question were not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

In full view of the above facts of recognition, it is presumed that the tax invoice Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was issued falsely without actual transaction, and it is difficult to reverse this only with the statement of evidence Nos. 9 and 14, and the testimony No. 1 and 2 of the witness Kim ○.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for all reasons.