beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018. 07. 20. 선고 2018누33250 판결

스포츠도박 사업자가 고객들에게 도박에 참여할 수 있는 기회를 제공하고 이에 대한 대가로서 금전을 지급받는 경우 부가가치세 과세대상에 해당함[국승]

Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit

Suwon District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-65723 ( December 21, 2017)

Case Number of the previous trial

Cho-2016-China-3145 (Law No. 1730, 2017)

Title

Where a sports gambling business operator provides customers with opportunities to participate in gambling and receives money in return, it shall be subject to value-added tax.

Summary

Where a sports gambling business operator provides customers with an opportunity to participate in gambling through an information and communications network building system, etc. and receives money as a consideration therefor, it constitutes a taxable object of value-added tax because it constitutes a supply of goods or services with property value even if the act promotes speculation.

Related statutes

Articles 4 and 11 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and Article 19 of the Income Tax Act

Cases

2018Nu33250 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Value-Added Tax, etc.

Plaintiff and appellant

Ma-○

Defendant, Appellant

○ Head of tax office

Judgment of the first instance court

Suwon District Court Decision 2017Guhap65723 Decided December 21, 2017

Conclusion of Pleadings

June 1, 2018

Imposition of Judgment

July 20, 2018

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the cancellation order shall be revoked.

The defendant's imposition of 50,00,000 won of value-added tax for the first period of 2012 against the plaintiff on April 6, 2016 (including additional tax of 75,458,97), 50,000 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2012 (including additional tax of 107,176,196), 50,000, 935,08, 970 won of global income for the first period of 2013 (including additional tax of 414,206,000,000,000 won of global income for the second period of 2013, 309, 209, 207, 309, 209, 209, 207, 309, 208, 209, 3006, 209, 2007, 309, 2009, 20163

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's reasoning for this case is that "the above-mentioned gambling site" is "the gambling site of this case, 3 9, 6 5 , 11 and 9 3", "the gambling site of this case, 3 15, 16 , and 17 - "the income tax" of 4 - - 3 - 4 - 7 - 4 - 7 - - 7 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 9 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 4 - - 8 - 1 - - 2 - - 1 - 4 - - - 2 - - 1 - 4 - - - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - 2 - 1 - - 2 - 1 - 2 - - 1 - 8 - -

2. Additional parts

C) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the amount of betting money collected from the users of the instant gambling site and the amount of internal funds transferred should be excluded from the operating income of the instant gambling site.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to recognize that the above account was so-called deposit account, intermediate account, etc. used for the same purpose as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The changed part

With respect to this case, the Plaintiff did not gambling but provided users with an opportunity to participate in the gambling through the instant gambling site as the operator of the instant gambling site, and received money in return, constitutes a supply of services with property value, and thus constitutes subject to value-added tax.

In addition, in light of each operation method and size of the instant gambling site and the contents of the casino business rules (No. 2012-13 of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism’s notification), the value-added tax base cannot be deemed to have been mistakenly calculated, and it is difficult to deem that the computation of the value-added tax base is contrary to social norms as

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Site of separate sheet

Article 47-2 (Additional Tax on Non-Filing)

① 납세의무자가 법정신고기한까지 세법에 따른 국세의 과세표준 신고(예정신고 및 중간신고를 포함하며,「교육세법」,「농어촌특별세법」및「종합부동산세법�」에 따른 신고는 제외한다)를 하지 아니한 경우에는 그 신고로 납부하여야 할 세액(이 법 및 세법에 따른 가산세와 세법에 따라 가산하여 납부하여야 할 이자 상당 가산액이 있는 경우 그 금액은 제외하며, 이하 무신고납부세액 이라 한다)의 100분의 20에 상당하는 금액을 가산세로 한다. 다만, 과세표준 신고(「소득세법」제70조 및 제124조 또는「법인세법」제60조, 제76조의17 및 제97조에 따른 신고만 해당한다)를 하지 아니한 자가「소득세법」제160조 제3항에 따른 복식부기의무자(이하 복식부기의무자 라 한다) 또는 법인인 경우에는 각각 무신고납부세액의 100분의 20에 상당하는 금액과 수입금액에 1만분의 7을 곱하여 계산한 금액 중 큰 금액을 가산세로 하고,「부가가치세법」에 따른 사업자가 같은 법 제48조 제1항, 제49조 제1항 및 제67조에 따른 신고를 하지 아니한 경우로서 같은 법 또는「조세특례제한법」에 따른 영세율이 적용되는 과세표준(이하 영세율과세표준 이라 한다)이 있는 경우에는 무신고납부세액의 100분의 20에 상당하는 금액과 영세율 과세표준의 1천분의 5에 상당하는 금액을 합한 금액을 가산세로 한다.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a person fails to file a return on the tax base of national taxes under the tax-related Acts by the statutory due date of return due to an unlawful act, an amount equivalent to 40/100 (60/100, if a person fails to file a return on the tax base of national taxes due to an unlawful act committed in international trade) of tax payable shall be the additional tax: Provided, That if a person who files a return on the tax base (limited to a return under Articles 70 and 124 of the Income Tax Act or Articles 60, 76-17 and 97 of the Corporate Tax Act) by unlawful act fails to file a return on the tax base by double-entry bookkeeping or corporation, the amount equivalent to 40/100 (60/10, if a person fails to file a return on the tax base of national taxes due to an unlawful act committed in international trade) of an amount obtained by multiplying the tax base by 14/10,000, whichever is larger, and if a person under the Value-Added Tax Act fails to file the tax base of zero 10/10.