Seoul Administrative Court 2006Guhap39864 ( August 19, 2008)

early 2006west0101

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.

2011Nu5065 Disposition of revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

Appellant-Appellants

XX Co., Ltd

Appellant-Appellant

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap39864 Decided August 19, 2008

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu25779 Decided July 7, 2009

Supreme Court Decision 2009Du13474 Decided January 20, 201

July 14, 2011

September 8, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The portion of the claimant's claim for revocation of the refund refusal disposition of value-added tax of KRW 493,370,200 for the second period of 204 added in the trial shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of an appeal shall be five minutes, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

On October 4, 2005, the Defendant imposed value-added tax of KRW 1,260,136,938 on the Plaintiff for the first quarter of 2004, imposed value-added tax of KRW 48,487,209 on the second quarter of 2004, imposed value-added tax of KRW 493,370,200 on the second quarter of 2004, denied refund of KRW 493,370,200, and revoked the imposition disposition of KRW 329,919,280 on the corporate tax for the business year of 204 (the Plaintiff added the claim for revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first quarter of 204, and the claim for revocation of the imposition disposition of value-added tax for the second quarter of 2004, respectively, reduced the purport of the claim).

2. Purport of appeal

A. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the defendant's imposition of value-added tax 1,260,136,938 for the first period of October 4, 2005 against the plaintiff and the imposition of value-added tax 48,487,209 for the second period of 2004 shall be revoked, respectively.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation is dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff between February 12, 2004 and December 31, 2004, 000 (Seoul Jongno-gu 000, 000 representative director, 000), 00, 00, 00, 000, and 00,000 (Seoul Jongno-gu 00 Dong 00, 000)

00 building number 00, 000 representative director, 00 - stock company (Seoul Jongno-gu 00 00 dong, 000 representative director, 00 - Seoul 00 - 00 - 00 - representative director, 00 - Seoul 00 - representative director, 000 - Seoul 00 - 00 - representative director, 000 - representative director, 00 - Seoul 00 - 00 - representative director, 000 - Seoul 00 00 - representative director, 000 - 00 - 00 - representative director, 00 - 20 - 4 0 - 20 - 7 - 1 - 7 - 4 - - each of the above - - - 2 - - 7 - - - 1 - - 3 - - - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.

B. After conducting an investigation of the tax offense against the plaintiff (hereinafter "investigation of this case"), the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office assessed the tax invoice of this case as a false tax invoice and notified the defendant of the related taxation data. The defendant deducted the input tax amount under the tax invoice of this case as follows, and applied the corporate tax not to the plaintiff on October 4, 2005 by applying the additional tax amount for the first period of value-added tax of 1,407,005,670 (if the amount is less than 10 won, it seems that the amount was less than 10 won), the additional tax for the second period of 2004 amount of value-added tax of 106,485,820 won (if the amount is less than 10 won, it appears that the amount below 10 won), and 329,919,280 won (including the additional tax of 31,636,458 won, and less than 10 won) of corporate tax for the business year of 2004.

C. On November 15, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition. On August 11, 2006, the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal.

D. Meanwhile, on February 23, 2011, the Defendant revoked ex officio the part of the first half-yearly value-added tax in 2004 and the second half-yearly value-added tax in 2004, on the grounds of the issuance of the false tax invoices, and subsequently corrected the first half-yearly value-added tax in 2004 as KRW 1,260,136,938 (1,407,05,678 - 146,868,740), and the amount of the additional tax of the second half-yearly value-added tax in 2004 as KRW 48,487,209 (106,485,829 KRW -57,98,620).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 35, Eul evidence 1-2, 3, Eul evidence 35-1 and Eul evidence 35-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of the trial of this court;

With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax and additional tax prior to the correction of this case, the court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax and additional tax, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax and additional tax, and filed an appeal on each part against the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The judgment prior to the remand revoked the part against the Plaintiff in the judgment of first instance, and imposed value-added tax and additional tax, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended

All of them are revoked, but the judgment was rendered to dismiss the revocation of the second-term VAT refund refusal disposition in 2004, added by the court prior to the remand.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court prior to the remand, and the Supreme Court reversed each part of the judgment against the Plaintiff (the revocation of the disposition rejecting the refund of value-added tax for the second period of 2004 added by the Plaintiff in the trial prior to remand) and the part against the Defendant regarding the imposition of value-added tax for the first period of 2004 and the second period of 2004, excluding the penalty tax for failing to enter in the tax invoice, and remanded to this court, and dismissed the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal (the part concerning the revocation of the disposition revoking the imposition of additional tax

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the disposition imposing additional tax and corporate tax, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the portion (the same as the disposition of this case corrected by the Defendant on February 23, 201) excluding the portion of the disposition imposing additional tax on incomplete entries in the tax invoice in the first quarter of 2004 and the second quarter of 2004 prior to the correction of this case, and the part concerning the disposition rejecting refund of value-added tax for the second quarter of 2004.

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. The defendant added a new claim to revoke the revocation of the revocation of the revocation of the revocation of the refund of value-added tax amounting to KRW 106,485,820 for the second period portion of value-added tax in 2004 to KRW 107,335,640 on June 3, 2009 by filing an application for the alteration of the purport of the claim before the remanding the case, which became the first instance court before the remanding the case. In addition, the part of the claim to revoke the revocation of the refund refusal is filed after the lapse of the period for filing the lawsuit, and thus unlawful.

B. Although it is not clear whether a party's claim contains a subject-matter of a lawsuit, if it is evident that the claim is the cause of the claim that the subject-matter of a lawsuit is asserted from the original point of view, it shall be deemed that the subject-matter of a lawsuit is included in the claim of the complaint. Ultimately, the parties clearly specified the subject-matter of a lawsuit by arranging the claim in accordance with the cause of the claim and clearly specifying the subject-matter of the claim. Thus, whether the period for filing a lawsuit regarding the subject-matter of a lawsuit is complied with should be determined at the time of submission of the complaint, not at the time of modification of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1025

C. According to the above evidence, the plaintiff filed a return of KRW 49,652,38 on October 4, 2005, the amount of value-added tax for the second-term 2004 to be refunded. However, on the ground that most of the refund amounts reported by the plaintiff on October 4, 2005 constitutes an input tax amount for 1,282,188 won, and thus, the plaintiff did not issue a return refusal disposition for 493,370,200 won (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition rejecting the refund of this case"). The plaintiff's disposition rejecting the refund of value-added tax for 207,335,640 won (49,37,020 won + 57,98,620 won). The plaintiff's disposition rejecting the refund of value-added tax for 207,300 won (the above disposition deducting the amount of value-added tax for 205 won from the above disposition rejecting the refund of value-added tax for 207, 181,36481,581,20.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the amount of tax credit notified to the Plaintiff.

106,485,820 won notice is mixed with the refund refusal disposition in this case and the imposition disposition of KRW 107,335,640 for the second term value-added tax in 2004. The plaintiff stated in the complaint that "the imposition disposition of KRW 106,485,820 for the second term value-added tax in 2004" was revoked is not just seeking partial revocation of the above imposition disposition of penalty tax but also seeking revocation of the above disposition of imposition of penalty tax and the refund refusal disposition in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff changed the purport of the claim by clearly stating that the plaintiff sought revocation of the refund refusal disposition in the application for amendment of the purport of claim in June 3, 2009, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff newly added the claim for revocation of the refund refusal disposition in this case, and it shall be determined at the time of filing a lawsuit based on whether the period for filing a lawsuit complies with the first time, and it shall not be determined at the time of filing an application for modification of purport of the claim.

Therefore, it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed within the legitimate time limit for filing a lawsuit through the procedure of the previous trial. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense on a different premise is without merit.

4. Whether the disposition of this case is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff, like the entry of the instant tax invoice, has actually purchased and settled the transaction price from each purchaser, and this is confirmed by the Plaintiff’s bank transaction details and the Plaintiff’s letter of commitment to sell goods. Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant reported otherwise is unlawful.

2) Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition and the disposition rejecting the refund of value-added tax, which did not deduct input tax, are legitimate, since the instant tax invoice constitutes a “processed tax invoice different from the actual supplier or a supplier on the tax invoice” or a “processed tax invoice received without actual transaction.” Even if the instant tax invoice is not true, the Plaintiff, an exporter of gold bullion, without knowing that the value-added tax paid or payable to the so-called large coal company was not ultimately paid to the State due to gross negligence, and then the Plaintiff’s application for deduction or refund of input tax pursuant to the instant tax invoice constitutes part of the crime of evading tax by realizing the distribution of criminal profits, and thus, it cannot be allowed under the principle of good faith as provided in Article 15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same).

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A general form, etc. of an irregular gold bullion transaction for the purpose of evading tax;

A) According to Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8826, Dec. 31, 2007; hereinafter the same), the zero-rate tax rate shall apply to the supply of exported goods. Furthermore, according to Article 24(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17827, Dec. 30, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply from July 1, 2003), the goods supplied by an entrepreneur with a purchase confirmation shall be included in the "export goods". Since the gold bullion is not an exception, it may be subject to the zero-rate tax rate even if the gold bullion importer, etc. receives a written confirmation of purchase from the head of a foreign exchange bank on the basis of the export-related documents, and Article 11(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322, Dec. 31, 2004);

B) By abusing the above zero-rate or zero-rate tax exemption system, gold bullion is imported and distributed through various stages of wholesalers through zero-rate or zero-rate tax exemption system. The so-called so-called "large Carbon Business" is converted into the so-called "large Carbon Business" (the business that has no economic ability, but closes its business with the intention of tax evasion) and then is distributed through multiple stages of wholesalers, and the "large Carbon Business" exports the value-added tax collected in transactions, and the "large Carbon Business" is exempted from the value-added tax collected in transactions, and the exporter is entitled to receive the unpaid value-added tax from around 2002 to the precious metal business located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. In addition, the type of "large Carbon Business" made under the value-added tax exemption system is more detailed.

(1) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the stages of “foreign enterprises ? importer ? Tax-free wholesalers ? ? Tax-free wholesalers ? Tax-free wholesalers ? ? Tax-free wholesalers ? ? Export enterprises ? Foreign enterprises ? The transaction amount is paid in sequence from the exporter to the importer, but in particular, the taxable wholesalers are only to issue the tax invoice under the direction of the specific person or the importer, and there are many cases where gold bullion is not actually traded or transported.

D. The "GGGGGE" purchased gold bullion as tax-free gold and sold it as tax-free gold, and then evades the value-added tax by withdrawing, concealing, and closing its profit within a short period of time. "PGGGE" sells gold bullion at a price lower than the purchase price. However, since the value-added tax added to the value-added tax is higher than the purchase price and the value-added tax collected is not paid, there is a substantial difference between the supply price and the purchase price. Meanwhile, the value-added tax collected by the "PGE" is successively transferred by each company in the following stages using the tax invoice delivered from the immediately preceding stage to deduct the input tax amount. In the end, the exporter's refund from the country after its zero-rate export. The ultimate profit is the price of the value-added tax not paid by the "PGGE" company, which is the one paid by the domestic company in the form of the "PGE" or the one paid to the domestic company in the form of the "PGGE" separately from the domestic export price.

In order to maximize the profit, the third party distributes gold bullion in a short period of time as much as possible, and to prevent disputes between the participating companies that may arise from the distribution of gold bullion, the loss of proceeds, etc. ① In order to operate most of the same states (referred to those who prepare for the import fund of the first gold bullion from the outside of the wide coal business network) simultaneously with the exporting company and the importing company, ② to place the former owner in direct transaction with the 'explosion company', ③ to determine the volume of the transaction, unit price, and the margin of the transaction at each stage of the transaction, ④ to determine the volume of the transaction, the unit price, and the number of transactions from the importing company to the exporting company, and ⑤ to the actual gold bullion transaction stage, the actual gold bullion transaction stage is very short.

Most of the cases of prompt transportation into exporters is the case where they are transported as soon as possible (the transportation is made at each stage of construction transaction).

Even if this is a normal transaction, it is only a formal transport for disguised trade.

C) The security system was established [Article 106-3(11) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004)] to ensure that the head of the competent tax office may demand the wholesalers, etc. of gold bullion to provide a security when the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7322 of Dec. 31, 2004) was amended in order to prevent tax evasion by the aforementioned method. Since April 1, 2005, 268 tons of gold bullion import volume and 233 tons of export volume were reduced to 56 tons of import volume and 19 tons of export volume in 205 when the aforementioned security system came into force.

2) History, etc. of the Plaintiff Company and the representative director

A) On February 12, 2004, the Plaintiff was established as the head office of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00 dong 00 dong 00 dong 000 dong 2000 dong dong 2000 dong 100 million capital for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing gold, such as gold bars, gold bars, and other non-ferrous metal. The Plaintiff is registered as the Plaintiff’s shares by investing KRW 45 million, which is the representative director, KRW 45 million, KRW 35 million, KRW 00, KRW 3000, KRW 25 million, and KRW 25 million, and KRW 00, KRW 45%, KRW 300, and KRW 25% of the directors, respectively.

B) The Plaintiff used approximately 12 00,000,000,000 won for lease deposit and monthly rent of KRW 10,000,000 for 00,000 for 00,000 for 00,000,000 for 00,000 as its principal office. The parties to the said lease agreement are 00,000,000 representative director for international payments in external relations with the Gu0. The parties to the said lease agreed to sell precious metal on the precious retail on a seven-year basis to the local ( Daejeon and Gwangju) precious retail on the local (Seoul), and on January 30, 202, 00 for 00,000,0000 for 1205,000 Futures Investment Company’s equity shares, and thereafter, international payments are made.

It has been changed and operated until now.

C) Meanwhile, around 1987, Gu 00, the representative director of the Plaintiff, graduated from the department of 00 University economics, and from September 25, 2002 to December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff was registered as the representative of 00 Construction, which is located in 889-70, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and directly operated one employee. The Plaintiff’s representative director had no experience of engaging in the business or trade business at all, and at the time of the Plaintiff’s incorporation, the bank’s obligations amount to KRW 130 million.

3) Specific details of the instant gold bullion transaction, etc.

A) According to the flow of the tax invoice and the details of remittance, the Plaintiff purchased 35 times over the same day, such as the statement of the invoice of purchase and sales of attached Table 1, and then processed it in the form of gold e.g. (only one transaction exported to 00 Hong Kong Line on September 3, 2004) as it is or in the form of gold e.g. (only one transaction exported to 00 tons in Hong Kong Line on September 3, 2004) and sold 00 e.g. (Chow 000 e.m., 000 e.m.) or 00 e.m. (Sun 000 Ga Lersdd) in Hong Kong located in 11.

B) Examining the specific details of transactions, the Plaintiff purchased 20 km from March 3, 2004 to 289,060,000 won now, and sold 291,240,000 won on the same day to 00 km. On the same day, wholesale prices have reached 314,65,880 won at 20 km and 26 km total from March 8, 2004 to 384,106,580 won (295,46,60 won + 88,46,600 won) at 200 78,500 won and then sold 385,50 won in total to 385,50 won in total at 261,56,500 won in total at 385,500 won in total at 200 785,500 won in total at 296,516,500 won in total at 20 375,61,37507.

C) The Plaintiff purchased 100 km from September 2, 2004 to 1,530,667,000 now, and processed it in the form of gold stuff, and then exported to 000 Hong Kong located on the 3th of the same month following that day. The export price was 1,495,54,000 won which is below the above purchase price, and the wholesale price was 1,626,62,600 won on the same day.

D) On June 22, 2004 and the 23th day of the same month, the Plaintiff purchased an amount equivalent to KRW 219,789,00 on a total of 15km per annum and sold it again to 220,80,000 won on the 28th day of the same month. At the time of the above sale, the wholesale market was 238,39,404 won.

E) At the time of each of the above transactions, the Plaintiff traded only by telephone with no direct counterpart to the transaction, and received goods sales offer by facsimile even with the offer of goods sales. The Plaintiff’s offer of the above 35 purchase and 10 domestic sales offer was made out on March 8, 2004 (2) and the 18th day of the same month, and the 23th day of the same month.

I 00 gold purchase and transaction with Sungjin on April 30, 2004, purchase and transaction with Sungjin on May 6, 2004, purchase and transaction with 00 Gad on May 10, 2004, purchase and transaction with 00 Gad on May 27, 2004, purchase and transaction with 19th of the same month, 16th of August, 2004, 19th of the same month, 19th of September, 204, 200 Gad on September 20, 2004, 100 Gad on September 200, 200 Gad on September 20, 2004, 200 Gad on September 20, 200 Gad on September 20, 204, and 10th of the above sales and sale with Gadul on goods (hereinafter referred to as 10th of the above year).

However, in relation to the purchase transaction with Sungwon on May 6, 2004 among the letter of promise to sell the above goods, the facsimile (No. 4-7) sent by the seller to the plaintiff with the purport that the purchase request of the plaintiff is approved (No. 4-7) is approved, the seller's name and seal impression of the plaintiff company are affixed to the purchaser column with the blank, and the present delivery date is also written on May 4, 2004.

F) At the time of each of the above transactions, the Plaintiff settled the transaction price with the Internet Bank, and compared the above purchase and sale transactions with the above transaction details on March 8, 2004, the above tax invoice was purchased from March 8, 2004 to 26km on the same day. The details of the bank transaction were transferred 320 million won to the Plaintiff on March 8, 2004; 30,052,200 won on the 9th day of the following month; 30,000 won on the 20th day on the 19th day on the 20th day on the 20th day on the 20th day on the 30th day on the 10th day on the 20th day on the 20th day on the 30th day on the 30th day on the 20th day on the 20th day on the 20th day on the 30th day on the 208th day on the 20th day.

G) The Plaintiff is responsible for the overseas transportation of the goods for export in the 000 global scale, and the domestic transportation was requested to the 000 Korea Co., Ltd., and the copies of the transportation invoice kept by the 000 Korea Co., Ltd. are included in total transportation hours in total in 11 copies. However, the transportation hours are not specified in the 6th of the total transportation invoice kept by the Plaintiff, and the place of the receipt of the goods is 00 duds.

4) Details, etc. of transactions at the Plaintiff’s pre-purchase headquarters

A) 8 companies, including 00 bills, etc. issued the tax invoice of this case to the Plaintiff are now purchased from 00 dud, 000 dud, 00 dud, 00 dud, 000 stock companies, 00 dud, 000 dud, 000 stock companies, 00 dud, 000 stock companies, 00 dud, 000 stock companies, and 00 dud, etc. on the same day as the above companies sell to 8 companies such as 00 dud, 00, 000 stock companies, Y00, Y00, Y00 trade companies, 00 dud, 000, 000 trid, jud, 00 wd and 00 wd, e., 00 Gad and so on.

B) However, the Plaintiff’s trader

Some companies among the above companies closed their business without paying an amount of value-added tax as shown in the attached Table.

C) Of the above companies, yellow00, the representative director of 00 non-Tti among them is under overseas exit, and yellow 00, the representative director of 00 ice, has been residing from January 7, 2004 from "the house of 000 so-called Incheon located as a mentally ill person who is not able to make a decision."

D) On January 16, 2001, 200, the representative director of the Plaintiff, who was the purchaser, operated the Seoul Western District Court 2004 high-level 368, 2005 high-level 2, 2005 high-level 42, 2005 high-level 49 "00 high-level / 2000 high-level / 000 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 00 high-level / 200 high-level / 00 high-level / 200 high-level / 300 high-level / high-level / 205 high-level / high-level /

However, as above, the company that issued false tax invoices to 000 Gaz. 000 Gaz., 000 Gaz., 000 Gaz., which issued false tax invoices to 00 Gaz., or 00 Gaz and 00 Gaz, which is the customer of the Plaintiff’s purchasing place, or the company that issued false tax invoices to 00 Gaz, 00 Gaz, 00 Gaz, 00 Gaz, 00 Gaz, 00 Gaz, 00 Gaz., which is the customer of the Plaintiff’s purchasing place.

5) Results of the Plaintiff’s investigation

A) While investigating the Plaintiff’s refund of value-added tax, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office promulgated a suspicion of violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and conducted a tax investigation for the taxable period from February 12, 2004 to December 31, 2004 by the Plaintiff during the period from October 8, 2004 to August 23, 2005.

B) At the time of the above investigation, 000 stated that all of the banking operations, accounting books, preparation and issuance of tax invoices, and other operations were conducted without any other employee of the married person, and that the Plaintiff paid 45 million won to the source of the Plaintiff’s establishment funds as his own surplus funds, but later, 5 million won was borrowed from the above 000 won. In addition, Kim 00 stated that the above 25 million won of the above investment was deposited at the Cheongyang-ri branch of the National Bank’s Cheongyang-ri branch at the above 000 won upon the request of 00, and that she was asked to reply that she paid her funds from the former 00 after the commencement of the tax investigation.

Ma00 did not indicate specific sources because it did not comply with the request for attendance of the Seoul Regional Tax Office and borrowed money from friendlys about the investment.

C) At the time of the above investigation, the former 00 made a transaction by stating its intent to purchase and sell only by telephone at the time of the above investigation. In the case of a purchase transaction, it first received the payment by account transfer through Internet banking, and even in the case of a domestic sales, the former 00 received the payment by account transfer, and the former 00 stated that the person himself was transported to the trading company on his own on his own after being paid the payment by account transfer. Moreover, the credit cooperative located in the Plaintiff’s office stated that there was no cash and 5 km or more, and there was no keeping

D) The transaction with Hong Kong ju 00 was conducted through the introduction of 000 Dud's ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju son ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju, and the transaction unit was exported according to the transaction unit price if ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju ju.

E) In addition, the old 00 stated that the Plaintiff’s National Bank 00 million won was released from the branch account on June 21, 2004 to the Plaintiff’s 130 million won on June 21, 2004, and that the Defendant’s 00 won was in custody upon the request of the party to the seizure of the tax office, etc. in relation to each withdrawn amount.

F) Meanwhile, at the time of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation into the Plaintiff, the Seoul Regional Tax Office kept the documents of international funds (i.e., the documents of the Plaintiff’s international funds and the documents of the balance of claims against the delinquent national tax payer dispatched to the Seoul

G) On August 2005, the director of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office filed a complaint with the head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office in violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, stating that the Plaintiff and the Gu00 received false tax invoices of this case over 35 times, and that the sum of value-added tax was 1.56 billion won (493 million won) in total (493 million won) by manipulating evidentiary materials, and that false tax invoices were issued to four companies, including 00 duds, over 10 times.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence No. 4-1 to 10, and No. 5

Evidence 1-1 to 4, Evidence 10-1 to 17, Evidence 11-1 to 3, and evidence 12-1 of A

The evidence No. 13-1 to 7, the evidence No. 14-1, 2, 3, 2-2, and 3-3 of the evidence No. 14, and No. 3 of the Act

1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, 5-1 through 45, Eul evidence 6-1 through 20, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 8-1 through 14, Eul evidence 9-1 through 13, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 11-1 through 9, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 13-1, 2, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) As to whether u3000 tax invoices of this case are "tax invoices different from the facts"

A) Article 1(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that “the supply of goods as taxable subject to value-added tax” and Article 6(1) provides that “the supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods on all contractual or legal grounds.” In light of the fact that the former value-added tax is characterized as multi-stage transaction tax, delivery or transfer under Article 6(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act includes all acts of causing the transfer of authority to use and consume goods, regardless of the existence of actual profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu286, Sept. 24, 1985; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 201; 9Du9247, Mar. 13, 2001). In this case, the issue of whether a specific transaction constitutes the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act shall be determined on the grounds that there is no specific transaction under Article 20(1)2 of the former Value-Added Tax Act.

Based on the above facts, the entire transaction of the gold bullion was conducted only once a day through various stages of companies from which the gold bullion was imported and exported. After purchasing the gold bullion exempted from value-added tax at the intermediate stage, there is a so-called wide-scale carbon company which does not pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax and prepares and deliver a tax invoice and does not pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax. The export price of the gold bullion of this case is lower than the import price, and the transaction parties did not prepare a written promise to sell the gold bullion while trading the gold bullion, but it is difficult to conclude that the gold bullion transaction of this case does not constitute a supply of goods subject to value-added tax because the gold bullion transaction of this case was nominal transaction (or even if the plaintiff purchased the gold bullion from March 29, 200 to 20 g at now 100 km and 100 km now, the transportation invoice includes 00 '00 won of the goods received' (Article 3-1, 8-9, and 1000 g).

Each entry of No. 12-1), which alone is difficult to readily conclude that no delivery or transfer of gold bullion has been actually made), Eul evidence 2 through 30 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 31-1, 2,

3. Each entry in the evidence Nos. 32-1, 2, and B No. 33 and 34 is insufficient to recognize that the gold bullion transaction in this case is a nominal transaction, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff received a false tax invoice as if the value-added tax was included, even though the tax invoice received by the Plaintiff was only the value of supply, and even if the value-added tax was not included from the initial date, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

C) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit, premised on the fact that the instant tax invoice is a “franking tax invoice” that is entered differently from the fact by the actual supplier, the supplier, etc. on the tax invoice, or that it was received without the actual transaction

2) Whether the principle of good faith is applied

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes declares that the principle of good faith should be the basic guiding ideology in the field of tax law by stipulating that “A taxpayer performs his/her duties in good faith and sincerity.” This principle, which enables a taxpayer to realize or supplement the existing law and to secure concrete feasibility in the operation of the law through supplementation of the light of the law, is somewhat limited compared to the scope of application of the principle of no taxation without law in the field of tax law. However, if a provision of tax law is applied to an individual case, it would result in an unreasonable outcome that would result in failure to pay taxes in light of the universal justice and ethics, thereby leading to a sound legal order, and thus, a taxpayer’s failure to perform his/her duties, thereby leading to the imposition of an input tax amount under an exceptional provision, is naturally applicable to legal relations as to value-added taxes. Article 15 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that an entrepreneur who supplies goods or services should be entitled to a refund of an input tax amount under the principle of no taxation without law in the field of tax law.

If the output tax amount is not paid to the country properly, it is impossible to maintain the value-added tax system.

Therefore, in a series of continuous transactions, where a malicious entrepreneur has attempted to evade value-added tax from the beginning to the end, and does not pay the value-added tax collected by him by attempting to make an abnormal transaction that only causes losses if he/she does not evade value-added tax (hereinafter referred to as "illegal transaction"), as in the next transaction stage, if an exporter is entitled to deduct or refund the input tax without the burden of the output tax amount due to the application of zero-rate tax rate as in the next transaction stage, the country has no choice but to make a refund with other tax revenues. Such a result exceeds the passive gap of tax revenues and constitutes the divulgence of the National Treasury, and thus, the burden exceeds the damage of the value-added tax system itself, thereby causing serious harm to the overall tax system.

Of course, even if there are the above reasons, if an exporter is in a situation where the existence of an illegal transaction is unknown at all, he/she may not be denied that the exporter is entitled to deduct or refund an input tax amount as prescribed by the Value-Added Tax Act. However, if the exporter was aware of the existence of an illegal transaction at the pre-stage stage, he/she had engaged in a transaction in order to promote his/her own interest without vagabonds, and his/her transaction profit is attributable to the aforementioned illegal transaction, and his/her participation in the transaction becomes a critical factor that makes it possible to ultimately make an illegal transaction by taking advantage of the system for deduction and refund of an input tax amount, which is the premise thereof, inasmuch as the exporter’s deduction and refund of an input tax amount with another tax revenue is an act of pursuing unjust profits by abusing the system for deduction and refund of an input tax amount as well as preventing serious harm to the general tax system as seen above.

Therefore, in such a case, an exporter’s seeking the deduction and refund of an input tax amount cannot be easily paid in light of the universal sense of justice and ethics. This is against the principle of good faith as stipulated in Article 15 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, it is not permissible. Such a legal principle is equally applicable to a case where an exporter was unaware of such illegal transaction due to gross negligence in light of the perspective of fairness, the gravity of the outcome, and the universal sense of justice, namely, the relationship with a malicious business entity, and the exporter was aware of the existence of such illegal transaction. If the exporter was aware of such illegal transaction due to gross negligence, it is reasonable to deem that the same applies to a case where the exporter was aware of the fact that he was fully aware of the fact, but was unaware of the fact that he did not have been aware of the fact that he was

In addition, in such cases, since exporters who are in a mutual relationship with malicious business entities receive deduction and refund of input tax from the State, and thus, deny the deduction and refund of input tax for such exporters, it cannot be said that they transfer to exporters without reasonable grounds the responsibility for the evasion of value-added tax by malicious business entities.

B) The following facts revealed through the above facts: ① the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of manufacturing and retail business of gold bullion, etc. on February 12, 2004, with capital of 100 million won or more; ② the Plaintiff, a representative director, had no experience in engaging in the previous gold bullion business or trade business; ② the Plaintiff purchased a large amount of the gold bullion over several times in the first year of its establishment and processed it in the same or short period of time, and exported most of them in the form of gold bullion; ③ the malicious business operators, such as 00, 00 Korea, and 00 trade companies, which were the whole traders of the Plaintiff, were evaded the output tax and supplied it to the Plaintiff and its representative director without intentionally receiving tax exemption; ④ the Plaintiff’s purchase price of gold bullion and its export price of gold bullion from 00 Hong Kong at the time of its establishment to 00, 200, 200, 200, 300, 300, 300, 30, 30, 3.

In light of the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff stated that the transaction price was determined by Song 00; and (b) the place of receipt of gold bullion in the transport invoice kept by the Plaintiff was indicated as an office of 000 duds; (c) the Plaintiff could have purchased or exported the gold bullion in a short period; (d) it is because the malicious business operator in the middle stage supplied the gold bullion at a low price; and (e) it is difficult for the Plaintiff to engage in an illegal transaction without securing the market by exporting a large amount of gold bullion in light of the transaction structure; and (e) it is difficult for the Plaintiff and malicious business operator to use the gold bullion in bad faith without securing the market. In addition, if the Plaintiff cannot receive the deduction or refund of the input tax amount, the burden of the relevant tax amount would exceed the profit margin, and thus, trade relationship is premised on the Plaintiff’s receipt of the input tax amount deduction or refund from the State through the application of zero tax rate on the export. Such a series of transactions, and thus, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to prevent it in advance within a short period.

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is a malicious entrepreneur who makes illegal transactions for the purpose of evading the output tax amount in a series of transactions prior to the Plaintiff’s trade in the instant gold bullion, and accordingly, there is a deduction and refund of the input tax amount against the Plaintiff.

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the circumstances leading to the reduction of other tax revenues by gross negligence. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s seeking revocation of the instant disposition through the deduction and refund of the input tax amount through an illegal transaction by a malicious business operator is seeking to gain part of the output tax amount evaded by a malicious business operator by abusing the input tax deduction and refund system, not only the Plaintiff’s seeking partial distribution of the output tax amount evaded by a malicious business operator, but also undermining the basis of the VAT system and the overall tax justice as stipulated in Article 15

It can not be permitted against the principles.

3) Sub-decisions

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax 1,260,136,930 for the first term portion of 2004 against the plaintiff, the defendant's imposition of value-added tax 49,337,020 for the second term portion of 2004 against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's revocation of the above imposition through the deduction and refund of the input tax amount for the gold bullion exported by the plaintiff is not allowed against the good faith principle as seen above. Thus, each of the above imposition dispositions and the refusal of refund of this case are legitimate.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s respective imposition of value-added tax and additional tax and the Plaintiff’s claim against the refusal to refund of this case must be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the first instance on the claim for revocation of each imposition of value-added tax and additional tax is justifiable, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed as it was final and conclusive. The Plaintiff’s claim against revocation of the refund refusal disposition of this case added in the first instance trial, which was reversed before the remand, was remanded to the Supreme Court, and remanded to this court. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the refund refusal disposition of this case cannot be modified disadvantageous to the Plaintiff compared to the first instance court prior to the remand. Accordingly, the part on the claim for revocation of refund