[부가가치세등부과처분취소][공1998.2.15.(52),534]
The case holding that the cosmetics shall not be regarded as income generated from free occupation under Article 38 subparagraph 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, which is reported as an independent business operator under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the sales price of cosmetics deposited by the external business operator in excess of the total
The case holding that, on the grounds that it is reasonable to view that the non-cosmetics are independent business operators under the Value-Added Tax Act in cases where the non-cosmetics are supplied with cosmetics and independently supplied with cosmetics to consumers, and the non-cosmetics are provided with cosmetics sales services, if the non-cosmetics are recognized to fall under the "income from free occupation" under subparagraph 13 of Article 38 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of December 31, 1994), the cosmetics business operators are liable to withhold and pay income tax on the amount of income paid to the non-cosmetics, and if the non-cosmetics are supplied with cosmetics at a certain price of factory and supplied and sold independently to consumers under their responsibility with the calculation and responsibility, they do not fall under the "income from free employment" under Article 38 subparagraph 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.
Articles 1(1) and 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, Article 20(1)6 and 10 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994) (see current Article 19(1)7 of the Income Tax Act), Article 38 subparag. 13 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994)
Supreme Court Decision 87Nu156 Decided March 8, 198 (Gong1988, 690) 88Nu6320 Decided July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1245) Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1053 Decided May 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 174) 96Nu19017 Decided December 26, 197 (the same purport)
Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 200Na4888 delivered on August 1, 200)
The director of the tax office
Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu19371 delivered on October 31, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
A person who supplies goods or services independently for business (hereinafter referred to as a "business operator") is liable to pay value-added tax (Article 2(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act), and the tax base of value-added tax to be borne by a business operator is calculated based on the supply price of goods or services (Article 13 of the same Act). Thus, if it is deemed that a foreign business operator is a business operator who is supplied cosmetics from a cosmetics dealer and independently supplies cosmetics to consumers, he/she should be liable to pay value-added tax on the basis of the sale price of cosmetics supplied to the foreign business operator.
In addition, Article 20 (1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides business income and provides "income from free occupation" in Article 10 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same). Article 38 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14467 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides that free occupation income under Article 20 (1) 10 of the same Act provides various kinds of business income under subparagraphs 1 through 11, and subparagraph 13 provides "income from employment income and other income of a similar nature, which is paid according to the results of the provision of services to a seller of cosmetics, and where it is recognized that a seller of cosmetics is liable to pay income tax from free occupation under Article 38 subparagraph 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act."
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's business registration statement and retail business for 0.10. 10. 2. The plaintiff's sales price of the above 0. 1. 1. 2. The plaintiff's sales price of the above 0. 0. 1. 2. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2... 2... 2. 2.. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 1. 1. . 2 . . 1. 1. 2 . . . . 1. . 1. . 1. 1. 2 . . . . . 2 . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . ..... . . ...... . ... . . .. . . . . . ............... ............. . . ................. .............. .................................................................. .................................. .................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)