원고가 용역업체들에게 지급한 금원은 자기 사업을 위하여 사용된 용역의 대가에 해당함[국패]
Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap19093 ( December 23, 2011)
Cho High Court Decision 2010Du0124 ( October 17, 2011)
The money paid by the Plaintiff to the service company is equivalent to the money used by the service company for its own business.
In order for the Plaintiff to enter into an agency service contract as a domestic corporation and perform its obligations under the contract, the Plaintiff paid the service cost to the service company by entering into a various service contract with the domestic service company in the name of the Plaintiff. Thus, the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the domestic service company constitutes an amount of tax on the supply of the service used for its own business, and thus, it can be deducted
Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act
2012Nu2537 Revocation of the imposition of value-added tax
XX Stock Company
Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap19093 decided December 23, 2011
September 25, 2012
October 19, 2012
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 disposition of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2006 against the Plaintiff on November 10, 2009, value-added tax for the first term portion of 2007, value-added tax for the second term portion of 2007, value-added tax for the second term portion of 2007, value-added tax for the first term portion of 2008, value-added tax for the first term portion of 2008, and value-added tax for the second term portion of 2008 is revoked, respectively.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1. A cited part;
The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as stated in the following 2.2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A part concerning addition or height;
In addition, the following shall be added between the 8th sentence of the first instance court and the 10th sentence.
E) Thus, although the Plaintiff planned the instant development project, as a domestic legal person, concluded the instant agency service agreement with the service company in its own business with XX and received a tax invoice from the service company in its name in order to perform the duty stipulated in the contract, as well as paid the service price to the above service company. Thus, the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the domestic service company as the price for the supply of the service constitutes "the tax amount for the supply of the service used for its own business" under Article 17 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and can be deducted as the input tax amount.
In addition, the 8th sentence of the first instance court, the 15th sentence and 16th sentence are as follows.
Nevertheless, if a domestic service company paid the pertinent output tax amount, it is not necessary to pay the said output tax amount to the domestic service company. However, inasmuch as the Defendant did not take measures to refund the said output amount and did not allow the Plaintiff’s input tax deduction, which was traded and collected by the domestic service company, to the extent that it goes against the principle of tax equity, and thus, is not permissible.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.