The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Article 4(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) (amended by Act No. 8142, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that “in the case of a nonresident or a foreign corporation, the place under Article 120 of the Income Tax Act or Article 94 of the Corporate Tax Act shall be the place of business.”

In addition, Article 94(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010) provides that “if a foreign corporation has a fixed place in which it performs all or part of its business in the Republic of Korea, it shall be deemed that it has a domestic place of business.” Article 94(2) provides that “a domestic place of business prescribed in paragraph (1) shall include any of the following places.” Article 94(5) provides services through an employee, “a place where services are performed for more than six months in total during the 12-month period in which the provision of services continues, for which the provision of services does not exceed six months in total,” and “a place where similar services are continuously and repeatedly provided for more than two years” (b).

In addition, Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act, upon delegation under Article 9(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, provides that “in the case of ordinary supply, when the provision of services is completed” (Article 1) and “in the case of failure to apply the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2, when the provision of services is completed and the value of supply is determined” (Article 3).

On the other hand, according to Article 34 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, where a foreign corporation with no domestic place of business under Article 94 of the former Corporate Tax Act receives a service from the supplier, the service is supplied.