[2] The case holding that the above art service is a broadcasting company and the above production company is merely a person who actually receives the above art service in light of the fact that the art service provided by the art center for the program at the request of the broadcasting company was provided for the broadcasting company under a contract for the provision of art service between the art center and the broadcasting company and that there is no contractual relationship between the above production company and the art center

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Article 16(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, when an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, a tax invoice shall be issued to the person who receives the goods or services. Here, the "person who receives the services" refers to the person who receives services, etc. on contractual or legal grounds. Thus, in determining who is the "person who receives the services" on contractual grounds, the parties to the contract that causes the supply of the services in question and the contents thereof, and the payment relationship of the above services shall be taken into consideration.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff's provision of art services to the production program at the request of the art center is provided for cultural broadcasting in accordance with a contract for the provision of art services between the art center and the cultural center. There is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the art center. Furthermore, among the above art service costs, the high-maintenance of the above art service costs is strong in the preservation nature of the expenses paid by the art center for the program which is difficult to be used for the cultural broadcast. From 1998, the above fixed culture costs are directly paid to the art center. Thus, from 1998, the plaintiff and the art center are parties to the above service supply contract, and the plaintiff is merely a person who actually receives the above art service, and the plaintiff is not a party to the above service supply contract, and there is no obligation of the plaintiff to pay the fixed costs again to the art center in the way of direct payment of the value-added tax by the culture center. Thus, the plaintiff's provision of the above art service costs cannot be seen as being subject to unfair calculation or invalid.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tax invoice.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 52(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, if a domestic corporation’s act or calculation of its income amount is deemed to have unjustly reduced its tax burden on the corporation’s income due to transactions with a specially related person, it shall be subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation. Article 88(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “Where the service is provided at a rate lower than its market price” is one of the cases where the tax burden is deemed to have been unjustly reduced.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, "five percent of production management expenses" under the transaction standards and procedures between the main and MBC professional music prepared by the cultural broadcasting around 1996 (hereinafter "the transaction standards of this case"). The contract amount between the plaintiff and the cultural broadcasting is determined based on mutual consultation and adjustment based on the above estimate price, and the contract amount is determined less than the ordinary estimate amount. Since the nature of "cost for the service provided by the art center" is strong, the plaintiff was paid from the cultural broadcasting to the art center as it is. The cultural broadcasting is notified from 195 years prior to the preparation of the transaction standards of this case to the plaintiff from the production of the program of this case. After that, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as claiming for the production expenses of the cultural broadcasting to the extent that the plaintiff did not request the production expenses of the cultural broadcasting, and it cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's right not to request the production expenses of the cultural broadcasting, which is the market value of the culture of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to denial of wrongful calculation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)