[부가가치세부과처분취소][집33(3)특,479;공1986.2.1.(769),262]
The meaning of the payment that is unfairly low under Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act and the standard of judgment thereof.
Article 13(1)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an enterpriser is unreasonably lower than the market price that is deemed to unfairly reduce the tax burden in the transaction with a person with a special relationship, which means that the enterpriser’s payment of the price significantly lower than the market price that is deemed to have reduced the tax burden is unreasonable or remarkably low, and ultimately, it cannot be objectively determined based on normal transactions that do not lose the equity in the tax burden according to a specific case.
Article 13 (1) 3 of the Value-Added Tax Act
Plaintiff
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu1136 delivered on June 5, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 13(1)3 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that an enterpriser is unreasonably lower than the market price that is recognized to unfairly reduce the tax burden in trading with a person with a special relationship with him/her, which means that it is unfair or remarkably lower than the market price that is recognized to unfairly reduce the tax burden, and ultimately, it cannot be objectively determined based on normal transactions that do not lose the equity in the tax burden according to a specific case.
According to the court below's lawful determination, the plaintiff sold 6,440,00 won 1 to non-party 1, who is a part of the plaintiff's mother on February 17, 1982, and the defendant sold 9,739,000 won to the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1 who is a related party, at an unreasonably lower price than 9,739,000 won, and the above non-party 1 imposed the value-added tax on 3,29,000 won of the difference, but the above non-party 1 refused to purchase 1 to deliver this 2,00 won from the importer non-party 1 (the representative non-party 2) who is to deliver this 1,000 won to the transaction partner, but it purchased this 6,440,000 won from the above import agent through the plaintiff's sales agent, which is not the non-party 1, the above price of which was sold to the non-party 1, and there is no unlawful reason to acknowledge 40800 won.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)