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

A. The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the manufacture and sales of telecommunications equipment, computer peripheral devices, etc., concluded a consignment contract with home shopping, home shopping, and home shopping (hereinafter “instant home shopping business”) from 2006 to 2009, and sold a let factoring guide’s computer, peripheral devices, etc.

B. In case where the home shopping company of this case issued discount coupons and sold them at discount, the Plaintiff considered the discount amount as an amount of discount that is not included in the value-added tax base pursuant to Article 13(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and reported only the “amount of discount” as the value-added tax base.

C. However, while investigating corporate tax against the Plaintiff, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff omitted the amount of KRW 424,00,000,00 from 206 to 2009 in the value-added tax base, which was issued by the home shopping business entity of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax amount of KRW 20,50,390 for the first period of February 1, 2006, KRW 2006, KRW 9,618,770 for the second period of 2006, KRW 13,130,890 for the first period of 207, KRW 20,526,850 for the second period of 207, KRW 821,50 for the second period of 208, KRW 2008, KRW 5000 for the second period of 206, KRW 206, KRW 286,208 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant amount”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on May 20, 201, but the Seoul Regional Tax Office dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on July 8, 201, and the Plaintiff again filed an appeal on October 7, 2011, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on March 20, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 8, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1 and 4-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff issued discount coupons based on the basic contract and agreement with the home shopping company of this case, and sold the computer and peripheral devices of mophones, etc. The Plaintiff’s sales amount of 424,000,000 won (hereinafter “the discount amount of this case”) issued by the home shopping company of this case constitutes a discount amount under the Value-Added Tax Act, which is not included in the base of value-added tax, and thus, it is deemed as the value of supply under the Value-Added Tax Act, notwithstanding that the Defendant’s disposition imposing value-added tax by regarding “the sales amount before discount” as the value of supply.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 29, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a consignment sale contract with Home shopping. The main contents of the basic contract for consignment sale transaction are as follows.

Article 2 (Effect of Contract) ① This Agreement shall have effect on the date of conclusion of this Agreement, which provides for the basic matters regarding consignment transactions between the CJ and the Cooperative. ② The specific terms and conditions of consignment contracts, such as the name of the goods, etc., price of sale, sales commission, outline payment period, etc., and the terms and conditions of sales promotion on the goods, reserves and other professional arrangements shall be governed by the Convention on the Terms and Conditions of Entrustment Sales, which are separately prescribed by the CJ and the Cooperative, on the basis of the basic contract under the preceding paragraph. ① The tax invoice for sales commission shall be issued by the CJ on the basis of the date of the transaction: (1) if continuous transaction relations are planned, the sales commission shall be issued first of all; and (2) if a tax invoice is issued once a month, the “CJ” shall not be obliged to change the sales price of the goods, such as the goods, etc. at a discount of the CJ by the end of each month; and (3) if so, the “CJ” shall not apply to any change in its terms and conditions of sale, such as “B”.

2) On February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a consignment contract with a branch home shopping, and the main contents of the basic contract are as follows.

1. The term “A” and the term “B” under Article 2.1. The term “B” and “B” are to provide for the basic rights and obligations between the Plaintiff and B (GS home) before the conclusion of an individual contract, and no rights or obligations may accrue between A and B except as otherwise provided for in Article 2.3 of the Framework Agreement. It means the effective period of this contract; 2. The term “B” and this term shall be valid from the time of conclusion of an individual contract to require for sale, such as quality inspection of B, and the term “B” and the term “B” shall be fixed for sale at the same time as the end of the 2-month period. It shall be deemed that the term “B” and the term “B” shall be fixed for sale at the same time as the end of the 2-month period for delivery and sale of the goods. It shall be deemed that the term “B” and the term shall be fixed for sale at the same time as the end of the 3-month period for delivery and sale of the goods.

3) The home shopping company of this case issued discount coupons, etc. pursuant to an individual agreement with the Plaintiff based on a comprehensive prior agreement or a written confirmation under the electronic transaction system, and sold goods to the purchaser at a discounted price than the originally designated price. In this case, the goods purchaser was paid the sales price discounted. The Plaintiff also received fees deducted from the discounted price of goods in accordance with the agreement.

4) In the event that the home shopping business entity of this case sells goods at a discount by issuing discount coupons, etc., the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice to the seller of the goods with the selling price discounted in relation to the supply of the goods as the supply price. The home shopping business entity of this case issued the tax invoice to the Plaintiff with the sales commission deducted from the discount amount in relation to the supply of the service as the supply price.

5) From 2006 to 2008 the Plaintiff’s consignment sales and coophones, etc. are as follows.

In the table (unit: million won) trustee in the main sentence, in 2006, the discounted amount, such as the discounted amount of the sales from the consignment of coophones, etc. in the sales from the commission of coophones, etc. in 2007 to the sales from the consignment of coophones, etc. in 2008, CJ Home shopping 2,189 1421,404 1204 536 354,129 297 GS Home shopping 01,345 89 80 38,846 127 2,189 2,749 2,749 209 1,036 735,975 4244.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-8, 10, 11, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 13(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The amount falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be included in the tax base.” Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The amount of discount under Article 13(2)1 of the Act shall be the amount which deducts a certain amount from the ordinary supply value at the time of the supply of the goods or services directly in accordance with the payment for the quality, quantity, and the cost of delivery and supply, and other terms and conditions of supply.”

On the other hand, "Commission agent" refers to a person who engages in the business of selling and selling goods or securities on another person's account under his/her name (Article 101 of the Commercial Act). Such commission agent deals with entrusted affairs under the care of a good manager depending on whether he/she is entrusted (Article 112 of the Commercial Act, Article 681 of the Civil Act), so long as the principal is required to observe the sale price designated by the principal, and unless he/she bears the difference by himself/herself, the principal is not effective against the principal if he/she concludes a sales contract at an unfavorable price (Article 106 (1) of the Commercial Act). The commission agent under the Commercial Act is a person who enters into a direct sales contract under his/her own name but enters into a sales contract under his/her own name, and thus, he/she bears a duty to obtain rights and duties to the other party as a seller and buyer (see Article 102 of the Commercial Act). In other words, in terms of the supply of goods under the Value-Added Tax Act, the Value-Added Tax Act is treated as a service agent who directly supplies goods to the other party or receives remuneration (Article 5).

2) According to the above-mentioned facts and the legal principles on consignment sales, the factual relations and legal relations between the Plaintiff, Home shopping business entity of this case, and the purchaser of goods are summarized as follows.

As the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the home shopping company of this case is an explicit consignment relationship, the plaintiff is the consignee of the sales of goods and the home shopping company of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "trustee"). The home shopping company of this case receives the sales amount from the buyer of the goods and pays the plaintiff the sales amount. The plaintiff shall pay a fixed fee to the home shopping company of this case.

Although the purchaser of the goods purchased the goods from the home shopping company of this case, which is a trustee under the Commercial Act, he was supplied with the goods from the plaintiff, the truster under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the purchaser of the goods paid the price discounted by discount coupons, etc. for the goods.

O The discount sale of goods by discount coophone, etc. of the issuance of the home shopping company of this case and the deduction of fees therefrom was made in accordance with an all-inclusive prior agreement or an individual agreement between the above and the trustee.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant discount amount is directly deducted from the usual price of goods, which is the consideration for the supply of the goods, in accordance with the terms of the supply of the goods, and constitutes “influence amount” as stipulated in Article 13(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree

Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful on a different premise.

3) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the substance of the instant discount transaction without a prior agreement between the above and the trustee is that the trustee pays the sales amount equivalent to the discount amount by means of discount coupons, etc. to the truster on behalf of the purchaser of the goods, and thus, it does not constitute an amount of discount as referred to in Article 13(2)1 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 52(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, since the trustee pays the sales amount by means of discount coupons, etc

However, in accordance with an agreement between the above and the trustee, it is not reasonable to regard the actual amount of discount transactions of this case as the amount of discount transactions under the Value-Added Tax Act or the amount of discount borne by the trustee, or as the amount of discount, after mixing the consideration for the supply of goods between the plaintiff, the home shopping company of this case, and the goods buyer, with the consideration for the supply of goods. Thus, it is not reasonable to regard the actual amount of discount transactions of this case as the amount of discount transactions under the Value-Added Tax Act or the amount of discount borne by the trustee, since the above argument by the defendant is groundless.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Young-young (Presiding Judge)