Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap46074 ( December 23, 2012)

Seocho 2010Ch287 ( October 11, 201)

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was aware of the circumstances of malicious business operators in the course of a series of gold bullion transactions.

If a domestic seller of zero-rate tax based on a purchase certificate knew or did not know that there was an illegal transaction at all the pre-stage stage due to gross negligence, it is a taxation requirement for the imposition of value-added tax, and thus, the burden of proof is imposed on the tax authority. Accordingly, the above argument by the Defendant cannot be accepted on a different premise.

Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu28324. Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax

AAA Fund, Inc.

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap46074 decided August 23, 2012

June 11, 2013

July 5, 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 value-added tax for the first period of 2005 against the Plaintiff on March 1, 2010, value-added tax for the second period of 2005, value-added tax for the second period of 2005, and value-added tax for the first period of 2006 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is, with the exception of the parts added under paragraph (2) below, as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and this Court cited it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The following is added to the first instance judgment of the first instance court. (The defendant, and most of the materials supporting the taxation requirements are considered when considering the special nature of the tax law relationship in the controlled area of the taxpayer, and in this case, it is reasonable for the plaintiff, who is the taxpayer, to bear the burden of proof of the taxation requirements. Therefore, in order to recognize the illegality of the disposition in this case, the plaintiff must prove that the gold bullion sold at zero tax is normal, but in case the domestic zero rate supplier, who knew of, or did not know by gross negligence, that there was an illegal transaction at the whole stage of the purchase confirmation based on the principle of good faith, is a taxation requirement of the imposition of value-added tax, and thus, the burden of proof is imposed on the tax authority, and the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.