1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff is a foreign corporation with the trade name of ○○○ company and is engaged in the business of arranging and arranging transactions of goods between a foreign corporation and a domestic importer and receiving commission, the court below determined that the supply of goods constitutes the supply of goods to a foreign corporation with no foreign currency under Article 11 (1) 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act or the supply of goods to a foreign corporation with no foreign currency under Article 16 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act during the period from 1980 to 1982, and determined that the supply of goods constitutes the supply of goods to a foreign corporation with no foreign currency under Article 11 (1) 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act or the supply of goods to a foreign corporation with no foreign currency under Article 16 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and determined that the supply of goods by the plaintiff to the foreign corporation with no domestic place of business under the above Article 16 (1) 2 of the Value-Added Tax Act or the supply of the goods to the domestic place of business.

2. However, Article 11 (1) 4 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods and services for foreign exchange earnings shall be subject to the zero-rate tax rate prescribed by the Presidential Decree for the policy purpose of encouraging foreign exchange earnings. Accordingly, Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that the supply of goods and services for foreign exchange earnings traded in Korea shall be subject to the zero-rate tax rate, and in light of the above legislative purpose, Article 26 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "goods or services supplied to non-residents or foreign corporations having no domestic place of business in Korea" means goods or services supplied without a domestic place of business under a direct contract with non-residents or foreign corporations. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the zero-rate tax rate shall apply in accordance with the above Enforcement Decree, as in the case of goods or services supplied without a domestic place of business under a direct contract with them (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu571 delivered on February 26, 1985).

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which held that the zero tax rate cannot be applied to the Plaintiff’s service supply of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application of zero tax rate under the above law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)