[인지세부과처분취소][공2006.1.1.(241),53]
The case holding that a pre-paid card, which is regulated by the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, does not constitute a "money coupon" which is a taxable document under Article 3 (1) 10 of the Stamp Tax Act.
The case holding that pre-paid cards issued by credit card companies fall under pre-paid cards as stipulated in subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act; pre-paid cards under the same Act are limited by the issuer to the credit card company; the issuer is subject to regulations under the same Act as to the total repayment obligation, the total issuance limit and the maximum amount of face value of issuance; the credit card holder is provided with goods or services from credit card stores; and the issuer is not a supplier of goods or services; and the credit card company is separate from the gift certificates under the former Gift Certificates Act (repealed by Act No. 5749 of February 5, 1999); and the interpretation of tax laws and regulations is not allowed on the grounds that the aforementioned pre-paid card is interpreted as a taxable document under Article 3 (1) 10 of the Stamp Tax Act, unless there are special circumstances.
Article 3 (1) 10 of the StampA, Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act
Samsung Card Co., Ltd. (Law Firm C & C, Attorneys Noh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu2945 delivered on November 19, 2004
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the second ground for appeal
A. The judgment of the court below
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated that Article 3 (1) 10 of the Stamp Tax Act provides merchandise coupons as one document for stamp tax payment. The merchandise coupons here are the merchandise coupons, according to the definition of Article 2 (1) of the former Gift Certificates Act (amended by Act No. 5749 of Feb. 5, 1999; hereinafter "former Gift Certificates Act"), and issued and sold a bearer certificate, regardless of its name or form, in which the issuer enters a certain amount of money or the quantity of goods or services (including records by electronic or magnetic means), and issued and sold a bearer certificate, regardless of its name or form, and the holder can use it to present or deliver it to the issuer or to the person designated by the issuer or by other means, and determined that the merchandise coupons in this case can be viewed as real securities that can receive goods or services from the issuer of the merchandise coupon in accordance with the contents of the certificate. The court below determined that the merchandise coupon in this case can be seen as being substituted for the existing merchandise coupon in the name of another person, but it can be viewed as a type of the merchandise coupon in the former Credit Card Act.
B. Judgment of the Supreme Court
However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.
Article 3(1)10 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides for a “money coupon” as one of the documents to pay stamp taxes. The former Gift Gift Tax Act has a definition provision on “money coupon,” but there is no separate definition provision on “money coupon,” even after February 5, 199 of the repealed Tax Act.
Meanwhile, from August 28, 1997, the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act defines “Pre-paid card” as “pre-paid card” (Article 2 subparag. 8), which provides that “The credit card company may provide goods or services within the amount recorded at the request of a pre-paid card holder” as “pre-paid card” (Article 2 subparag. 8), and regulates it separately from merchandise coupons under the former Gift Certificates Act, which is repealed after February 5, 1999.
According to the facts established by the court below, the card holder of this case is a certificate that the plaintiff, who is a credit card company, received the price in advance from the credit card merchant by electronic or magnetic means and issued the card by issuing the card. The card holder is entitled to receive the goods or services within the limit of the amount recorded on the card. It constitutes a pre-paid card under Article 2 subparagraph 8 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act. Under the same Act, the pre-paid card holder is limited to the credit card company and is subject to regulations under the same Act on the duty of redemption, total issuance limit and issuance limit, deposit limit, deposit duty (Articles 22, 24, and 25), and the card holder is provided with the goods or services from the credit card merchant and the issuer is not a supplier of the goods or services, and it is not subject to regulation under the former Gift Gift Act, and it is not subject to regulation under the former Gift Gift Act, and it is not subject to any restriction on the issuance or issuance limit due to the abolition of the gift certificate law, and it is not subject to tax reduction or exemption under the principle 20.
Nevertheless, on a different premise, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to taxable objects of stamp tax, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the ground of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiff pointing this out is with merit.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)