Inasmuch as there is no circumstance to deem that the clothes sold in the market were the final exports, they do not constitute export.

Documents related to the instant transaction, such as orders and export declaration completion certificates, are indicated only as a trading partner in the middle sales name, and there is no document verifying that there is a contractual relationship with the direct importer, and it cannot be deemed that the clothes are directly exported in light of the circumstances, such as not participating in the transaction after receiving the clothing payment from the intermediate seller and delivering it to the intermediate seller.

Article 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act; Scope of export under Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree

Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-15276 ( October 21, 2016)

AA and 28

BB Head of tax office et al.

on December 23, 2016

October 21, 2016

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition of imposition in the attached Table 1 against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are entrepreneurs engaged in wholesale and retail business in the Seoul ○○-guCC market and the Seoul ○○-gu DD market.

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on EE (hereinafter “EE”), the director of the ○○ Regional Tax Office: (a) provided clothing to EE and received the sales proceeds in cash and check; (b) notified the Defendants of the pertinent taxation data by deeming that the Plaintiffs omitted the sales report even though they received the sales proceeds in cash and check.

C. Accordingly, as indicated in [Attachment 1] to 20, Defendant FF Head of the tax office issued a notice of correction and notification of value-added tax as indicated in the above table No. 21 to 29, as shown in [Attachment 1].

D. Plaintiff GG filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal regarding the first value-added tax in 2008, out of No. 28 of [Attachment 1] No. 2003, July 16, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 21, 2014.

마. 원고 HHH, III, JJJ, KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, OOO, AAA, PPP, QQQ, RRR(2008년 제1기 부가가치세에 한하여), SSS, TTT, UU은 2013. 7. 16. 및 2013. 9. 5. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 하였으나 조세심판원은 2014. 5. 26. 이를 기각하였다.

F. On November 26, 2013, Plaintiff HH, III, JJ, KK, KK, LL, MM, NN, OO, AD (as to the remainder of the first value added tax in 2008), V, W, YY, YY, ZZ, ZZ, Abb, ccc, and ddddd were requested by the Tax Tribunal on November 26, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed it on May 30, 2014.

사. 원고 PPP, QQQ, RRR, GGG(2008년 제1기 부가가치세를 제외한 나머지 부분에 대하여), eee, fff, ggg, hhh은 2013. 12. 2. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 제기하였으나 조세심판원은 2014. 6. 5. 이를 기각하였다.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, evidence 4-1 through 4, evidence 5-1 through 8, evidence 6-1 through 5, evidence 7-1 through 11, evidence 12-1 through 4, evidence 13-1 through 7, evidence 14, evidence 15-1 through 4, evidence 16-1 through 7, evidence 16-1 through 173, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs are the parties directly exported the clothing to Japan, and the EEE is in charge of purchase agency business, and therefore the application of zero tax rate should be recognized according to the substance over form principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Article 11(1)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013) provides that the zero-rate tax shall apply to the supply of exported goods, and Article 24(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012) provides that exports refer to shipping domestic goods out of Korea to foreign countries. Under the aforementioned value-added tax system, the application of zero-rate tax shall be recognized as a matter of principle only for exports in order to prevent double taxation in cases where value-added tax is imposed on and collected from an producing exporting country in international trade of goods or services, and the circumstances that constitute export goods subject to zero-rate tax shall be proved by the taxpayer who asserts this.

2) In full view of Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 4-1 to 4, Eul evidence 2-6, Eul evidence 3's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument, the following facts are recognized.

① When the EE orders the kinds of goods to the plaintiffs, the employees of the EE visit the workplace of the plaintiffs, along with the employees of the Japanese importing company, and examined the prices of the goods. However, the order issued to the plaintiffs is issued only in the name of the EE (the plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff entered into an export contract with the plaintiffs on the basis of the evidence No. 1 through No. 4, No. 19-1, No. 2, and No. 22-1 through No. 4, the evidence No. 1, No. 19-2, and No. 222, but it is difficult to view the EE or E-E as an order or order issued directly to the plaintiffs because the form of the above order contains the name of the KJ established in Japan, and it is difficult to view the ZZ as an order or order issued directly to the plaintiffs).

② Once the Plaintiffs sent the completed clothes and simplified receipts in the EEE market as EE warehouse, they did not participate in the transaction process or transport process thereafter, and did not clearly state the responsibility for the loss of or damage to the goods.

3. EE re-deliveryed to Japan after checking and packaging the letters sent by the Plaintiffs.

④ The Plaintiffs did not report export of the clothing exported under their names, and instead, they set the sales standards for the company once a quarter, and some of the Plaintiffs reported export under the name of the EE, and the name of the other business.

5. EE received the purchase tax invoice as much as is necessary for filing sales reports from the Plaintiffs.

6. The EE shall be registered as a wholesale business, and the EE reported corporate tax and value-added tax on this premise.

7) EE has received the price of goods through the transfer of foreign currency to the United Nations, and jj, a real representative of the above company, has kept it individually. When it is necessary, EE has taken the method of illegally exchanging goods in Korean currency and paying it to the plaintiffs. The exchange profits and losses incurred in the process have all been borne by EE.

8 At the request of the Z, the ZE established the KJ as a separate legal entity in Japan and created the appearance of the ZZ as the purchase of the goods from the above legal entity.

3) 위 인정사실 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, 주문서, 수출신고필증 등 이 사건 거래와 관련한 서류들에는 EEEE만 거래당사자로 표기되어 있을 뿐이고 원고들과 ZZZZZZ가 직접 계약관계에 있음을 확인할 만한 서류상 증거가 존재하지 않는 점, 원고들은 이 사건 의류 판매대금을 외국환은행에서 원화로 지급받은 것이 아니라 EEEE으로부터 지급받은 점, 원고들이 이 사건거래 대상인 의류들을 EEEE 창고로 배송한 이후로는 거래에 대하여 관여하지 아니 하였으나 EEEE은 수출신고 및 매출신고 등을 임의로 결정할 수 있는 권한이 있는 점, 원고들도 EEEE 명의로 된 세금계산서를 발급하는 데에 아무런 이의가 없었던 점, 그 밖에 EEEE이 매출신고, 수출신고 등을 스스로 하였고 물품대금의 보관 및 환차손익 부담 등에 있어서도 대금의 귀속 주체로서 행동한 점 등을 종합해 볼 때, 원고들이 제출한 증거들만으로는 ZZZZZZ에 직접 물품을 수출한 당사자가 원고들이라고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 오히려 이 사건 의류는 원고로부터 EEEE에게, EEEE으로부터 ZZZZZZ에 순차적으로 공급되었다고 봄이 상당하다. 따라서 원고들의 위 주장은 이유 없다(원고 JJJ, MMM, ZZZ, PPP, QQQ는 별지 1 표 중 연번 6(2008년 제1기 부가가치세를 제외한 부분), 9(2008년 제1기 부가가치세를 제외한 부분), 12, 21, 22 기재 각 부가가치세에 대하여 서울행정법원 2014구합66328호로 부가가치세 부과처분취소를 구하였는데, 위 법원은 2015. 12. 24. 위 원고들의 청구를 기각하였고 위 원고들이 위 판결에 대하여 항소하였으나 서울고등법원은 2016. 9. 6. 위 항소를 기각하였으며 2016. 10. 5. 위 판결이 확정된 사실은 이 법원에 명백하므로 위 부분에 대하여 위 판결과 달리 판단하는 것은 허용되지 아니한다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.