(심리불속행) 호출사업자가 택시운송사업자에게 콜서비스를 제공하고 지자체로부터 대신 받는 보조금은 부가가치세 과세표준에 포함되지 않음[국패]
Seoul High Court 2012Nu7020 (201.02.01)
Seocho 2010west 1352 (Law No. 29, 2011)
(Trialless Conduct) Subsidies that a call service provider provides call services to a taxi transportation business entity and received on behalf of the local government shall not be included in the base of value-added tax.
(C) The purpose of the instant subsidy is to support the business operator of brand call-si, and that there is no direct quid pro quo relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s provision of call services, etc. to the taxi transport business operator. Therefore, the instant subsidy cannot be included in the value-added tax base as a subsidy not directly related to the goods or services supplied by the Plaintiff.
Article 13 of the Value-Added Tax Act
2013du6404 Disposition to revoke the imposition of value-added tax.
AAA, Inc.
Head of the Do Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu7020 Decided February 1, 2013
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Although examining the grounds of appeal in comparison with the records of this case and the judgment of the court below, the argument on the grounds of appeal is deemed not to include or not acceptable the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition
Reference materials.
If the grounds for final appeal are not included in the grounds of appeal that make it appropriate for the court of final appeal to become a legal trial, such as matters concerning significant violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., the system of final appeal will not continue to proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final appeal, but will not proceed with the deliberation on the merits of the grounds for final