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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The plaintiff's status

On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff took over 00 Schlage 00 points from △△△△△△ on February 29, 2012, and is an unlisted corporation that runs a distribution business by operating 00 Schlages nationwide as of June 2012, and selling food and daily necessities to end customers.

B. The Plaintiff’s business type

1) The Plaintiff is engaged in a sales store operated by the Plaintiff directly by the subcontractor (hereinafter referred to as a "direct store") to sell various goods purchased from the subcontractor to the end-consumers, or a sales store operated by another entrepreneur, and a goods distribution agency, if the subcontractor enters various goods into a logistics center, they are directly operated by the Plaintiff or a goods handling store. The goods distribution business is a taxable business of value-added tax depending on the type of goods supplied by the Plaintiff.

2) The plaintiff supplied the subcontractor with the goods stored as the logistics center to the goods directly operated by the plaintiff or to the goods handling store, and received the "logistics agency fee" in return for the supply of the goods distribution service, and paid the "logistics agency fee" in return for the supply of the above goods distribution service by ○○ corporation, ○○ corporation (hereinafter "○○") and △△△△△△△.

(c) Return and payment of value-added tax for the first period of 2012;

On July 25, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the purchase tax for the logistics agent at the first value-added tax declaration on July 25, 2012

Total amount of KRW 00,000,000 is a common input tax related to the goods distribution business, which is a concurrent business of taxation and tax-free business, and thus, in proportion to the ratio of the supply price of all the Plaintiff Company to the total supply price of the Plaintiff Company, the value-added tax was reported and paid without deducting KRW 00,000,000 among the input tax amount in the

(d) Claim for correction;

On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for rectification of value-added tax for refund of KRW 00,000,000, on the ground that the total amount of the input tax amount for the first year input tax should be deducted from the output tax amount, as both the input tax amount for the logistics agent, which is a taxable business, to the Defendant.

E. Disposition of this case and appeal

The Defendant, on January 16, 2014, stated that the instant input tax amount constituted common input tax amount to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff rejected the above request for correction (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"), and the plaintiff appealed against it and filed a request for adjudication on April 21, 2014, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the above request on October 13, 2014, and [the grounds for recognition] was not disputed, and each entry in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

The Plaintiff entered into a delivery contract, separate from a goods supply contract with a collaborative company, provided logistics agency services on the basis of the contract with the collaborative company, received the goods distribution agency fees for the provision of logistics agency services and handled the accounts separately from the goods sales. The Plaintiff reported and paid the entire amount of the output tax as the whole taxation. The Plaintiff received the same services from the logistics agency in order to provide the above logistics agency services to the collaborative company, and paid the goods distribution service expenses for the same services. Therefore, since the input tax amount in this case constitutes a case where the actual attribution is clear as the input tax amount used for the logistics agency, which is a taxable business, it should be deducted from the output tax amount. The dispositions in this case on

2) Defendant

Since a collaborative company that entered into a contract for goods supply with the Plaintiff does not have a duty to transport goods to a goods handling store that entered into a goods supply contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s receipt of goods from a collaborative company as a logistics center and inspection and storage of them, and classification of goods handling store by customer is a service related to the Plaintiff’s goods distribution business, which is a concurrent business of taxation and tax exemption, and if it is deemed that the collaborative company has a duty to transport the goods to the goods handling store that is traded with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s provision of services to the collaborative company is merely a transport to the Plaintiff’s direct sales store on behalf of the collaborative company. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s provision of services from the collaborative company includes storage, classification, and inspection of the goods stored in the logistics center, the Plaintiff’s direct control or goods handling store, and the Plaintiff’s provision of services from the collaborative company does not coincide with the scope of services supplied to the collaborative company. Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate in terms of a common purchase tax amount where the input tax amount in this case is unclear.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The main contents of a direct purchase transaction agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the subcontractor and one of the following are as follows:

Direct purchase transaction contract 1)

The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "buyer") and the supplier of the place of residence (hereinafter referred to as the "supplier") enter into a contract for the direct purchase transaction with each other (hereinafter referred to as the "this contract") as follows:

Article 6 (Supply of Goods)

(1) If a buyer, with respect to the goods of a supplier, issues an order for the placing of a good to a supplier through EDI or facsimile by determining the kind, quantity, place, and date of the supply of the goods at the buyer's store or designated place, the supplier shall deliver it to the buyer's store or designated place in accordance with the terms and conditions of the order for placing the good.

(5) Where a supplier wishes to deliver goods using a buyer's logistics center, a supplier may pay a prescribed delivery fee separately and deliver goods using a buyer's logistics center.

(6) The time of delivery confirmation shall be the time when the supplier has completed inspection by supplying the goods to the logistics center of the buyer or to the buyer's store.

Article 12 (Return and Return of Goods)

(1) If, as a result of inspection at a logistics center or store for goods supplied by a supplier, the supplied goods are different from the details of the buyer's order or fail to meet the requirements for goods under Article 9 of this Agreement, the buyer may request correction thereof by returning them.

(2) A buyer shall not return any goods supplied by a supplier after the delivery thereof is confirmed: Provided, That in the following cases, such goods may be returned within a reasonable period:

1. Where the quality of the supplied goods is damaged, damaged, defective, etc. due to reasons attributable to the supplier;

2. Where the supplied goods are different from the buyer’s main contents or fall short of the goods requirements of Article 9 of this Agreement;

3. Where any violation of Article 9 is found in the supplied goods, or where normal sale of such goods is difficult due to social problems raised by public agencies, media, consumer organizations, etc. with respect to their quality;

4. Where any other justifiable ground exists for return.

Article 13 (Use of Logistics Centers)

1. Where a supplier wishes to use the logistics center of the buyer pursuant to Article 6 of this Agreement, the supplier shall pay the delivery fee to the buyer and shall otherwise agree the rate.

2) Among the Plaintiff and logistics agency, the main contents of the logistics agency contract concluded with ○○ and ○○○ is as follows.

A logistics agency contract (2)

The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "trustee") and the ○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "trustee") enter into a contract on the logistics agency business as follows in consultation with each other:

Article 2 (Definitions)

For the purpose of this contract, the term "logistics agency" means any number/delivery and other services incidental thereto related to storage, transportation to the national logistics center of the trustee, delivery to the delivery place designated by the truster, etc. after the trustee takes over the goods of the truster entered into the center of the trustee.

Article 3 (Goods and Areas Subject to Impositions)

1.The goods subject to logistics agency under this contract shall be all the goods produced or handled by the trustor as of the date of the contract;

Article 4 (Scope of Trade Name)

The specific scope of business of this contract shall be governed by the Additional Agreements.

Article 8 (Service Fees for Logistics Agency)

1. A trustee shall settle the fee per month based on objective data in accordance with the standards for calculating fees for an additional agreement and request the truster to pay the fee in cash to the trustee within 15 days from the following month’s working day, and the truster shall pay the fee in cash to the trustee within the date of request: Provided, That where the date of payment is no longer a bank, it shall be paid on

An additional agreement on the logistics agency business.

1. Scope of vicarious distribution;

A trustee shall perform the following duties with respect to the objects of a contract (cargos subject to logistics agency) of the truster:

1) Disposition of an order of the object of a contract for the delivery to a customer by a truster

(2) the storage of the object of a contract designated by the truster (tally, tally, and storage adjustment)

3) Safekeeping of the object of a contract designated by the trustor (storage and inventory management)

4) Classification of the subject matter of a contract designated by the trustor (classified/classification for each customer)

5) Transport (transport, delivery) of the object of a contract to a customer designated by the trustor.

6) Delivery and return of the object of a contract to a customer designated by the truster.

7) Handling of pre-determinations of the object to be supplied by the customer

8) Electronic data processing after the delivery of the object of the contract by the customer to the customer

9) A trustee shall notify the truster of the occurrence of special circumstances during the performance of his/her duties, in other words, and follow the truster’s instructions.

10) Other services added to any of the subparagraphs above.

2. Fees for logistics agency.

(Omission)

3) The main contents of the contract concluded with the Plaintiff and the logistics agency are as follows.

Additional written agreement for management cooperation contract shall be five)

Article 4 (Management Suspension Fees)

① The Plaintiff shall pay the following management cooperation fees as consideration for Article 2 of this Agreement:

2. Distribution service charges which △△△△ provides to the plaintiff;

- 3.93% of the shipping volume of drybox products;

-dry piece of goods shipped 4.18%

- 4.13% of the shipping volume ofwet goods;

* The details of the logistics services provided by △△△ for the plaintiff shall be substituted by the additional commodity management contract.

* If the classification of gamblings and pieces is not clear, the fee shall be calculated on the average of the respective rates of the United Nations.

3. Prices for direct importation, PL, manufactured goods, etc. directly provided by △△△△△ to the Plaintiff;

- 2% of the net sales of the product in question, provided that there is no commission for logistics entrustment of the product in question.

Goods Management Contracts (including Delivery Contracts)

Article 2 (Scope of Partnership)

All activities designated by the Plaintiff necessary for the business activities of the store operated by the Plaintiff, including inspection, purchase, classification of goods, storage of goods, delivery of goods, and delivery to the designated place, of all goods designated by the Plaintiff (Provided, That △△△△ shall have all facilities for the supply of goods and shall consult in advance).

D. Determination

1) Article 17(1) and (2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11608, Jan. 1, 2013) provide that the input tax amount to be paid by an entrepreneur shall be the amount calculated by deducting the input tax amount from the output tax amount; however, the input tax amount related to the business that supplies the goods or services exempt from the value-added tax shall not be deducted from the output tax amount; and Article 61(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24076, Aug. 31, 2012) delegated by an entrepreneur under Article 61(7) provides that where an entrepreneur concurrently operates a taxable business and a tax-free business, the computation of the input tax amount related to the tax-free business shall be based on the actual attribution, but an input tax amount (common input tax amount) related to the tax-free business shall be calculated based on the formula of the common input tax amount 】

2) If so, the issue of this case is whether the input tax amount of this case (logistics service cost) is a common input tax amount that is used in both a taxable business and a goods distribution business that is a concurrent business with taxation and tax exemption as well as a taxable business, and whether it is a common input tax amount that can not be classified into actual attribution. The issue of actual attribution depends on whether the goods or services in question have been used in any business sector within the country and actually has influenced actual utility.

In light of the above, considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s product distribution business created a distribution agency transaction between the Plaintiff and the subcontractor, even though the Plaintiff’s product distribution business created a distribution agency transaction between the Plaintiff and the subcontractor, the input tax amount of the instant case corresponds to the output tax amount arising from the distribution agency business (logistics agency fee). Thus, the input tax amount of the instant case ought to be deducted from the output tax amount by deeming it as the input tax amount used for the distribution agency business, which is a taxable business, to be an input tax amount that can distinguish the actual attribution from the output tax amount. Therefore, the disposition of the instant case, based on the premise, is unlawful.

① Generally, in supplying goods as part of the goods distribution business, there may be room to view that logistics service costs are used for the goods distribution business because the goods are ordinarily incidental to the goods distribution business. However, the Plaintiff’s goods are not supplied by itself, but the Plaintiff purchased and supplied goods from several collaborative companies. According to Article 6(1) of the instant direct purchase transaction contract concluded with the above collaborative company, the collaborative company is obligated to deliver the goods to the Plaintiff’s store (which appears to mean the Plaintiff’s store) or the place designated by the Plaintiff. This is not only consistent with the principle of good faith under the Civil Act that the obligor must pay back the goods to the Plaintiff’s address or the place designated by the obligee. This is also consistent with the principle of good faith under the Civil Act that one party to the contract should reduce the process of payment by direction of the other party to the contract, and so-called “the so-called” reduced payment directly provided to a third party under another contractual relationship with the other party to the contract is not included in the designated place. In fact, the collaborative company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a logistics agency fees without distinction between the Plaintiff’s directly dealing point

② Meanwhile, Article 6(6) of the instant direct purchase transaction agreement provides that a collaborative company shall supply goods to the Plaintiff’s logistics center or the Plaintiff’s direct store and the Plaintiff’s supply is confirmed at the time of the completion of the examination is premised on the case where the collaborative company wishes to supply goods through the logistics center pursuant to Article 6(5). Thus, the collaborative company cannot be deemed to have no obligation to supply goods as the goods handling store on the sole ground of Article 6(6).

③ As such, a collaborative company is obligated to supply goods to the Plaintiff’s direct management store or goods handling store located across the country. If a collaborative company has a nationwide delivery network, it would directly supply the goods to the Plaintiff’s direct management store or goods handling store, and thus, the Plaintiff need not supply distribution services to the collaborative company. However, in reality, since the collaborative company is not capable of directly supplying the goods to the Plaintiff’s direct management store or goods handling store, and thus, the collaborative company entered into a separate delivery commission contract to supply the goods through the distribution center that the Plaintiff bears the expenses, the costs for distribution services are expenses inevitably incurred by the Plaintiff’s vicarious distribution.

④ Even if a collaborative company does not use a logistics center and intends to deliver goods to a direct retail store or a goods handling store located across the country, it is deemed necessary to conduct the business of keeping the order of the Plaintiff as classified by the place of delivery. Moreover, even when examining the contents of Articles 6 and 13 of the instant direct purchase transaction agreement, the services supplied by the Plaintiff to the collaborative company include the services such as classification and storage of the goods stored as “supply using the logistics center.” Furthermore, under Article 12 of the instant direct purchase transaction agreement, the collaborative company is naturally required to perform the business of returning goods after the completion of the supply, and thus, it can be seen as one of the logistics agencies supplied by the Plaintiff to the collaborative company. Ultimately, it is difficult to view that there is a difference between the service supplied by the Plaintiff to the collaborative company and the service supplied by the logistics agency.

⑤ According to the contents of the instant management cooperation agreement, unlike ○○○ and ○○○○, it is reasonable that the △△△△ is a logistics agency that supplies logistics services to the Plaintiff through the logistics center in ○○○ and △△△△△△, and as a partner that supplies direct import goods, its own development goods, and its direct manufacturing goods, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the above direct import goods, its own development goods, and its direct manufacturing goods to the △△△△△△. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the scope of the service supplied by the Plaintiff to the subcontractor does not coincide with the scope of the service provided by the goods distribution agency.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.