Seoul High Court 2012Nu13902 (22 August 22, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do1035 (No. 2011.08)

(Presiding for Trial) Loan recruitment services are not exempt from value-added tax;

(C) In the event that a financial service provider is an independent business of lending money, which is an incidental business of a mutual savings bank business or a financial service provider, it does not constitute a "mutual savings bank business" or a "other money service business", as long as the Plaintiff, who has a third party position against the financial service provider, independently conducts a lending business, which is an incidental business of the financial service provider.

Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Decree thereof.

2012du 23006 Disposition of dismissing the Value-Added Tax Correction

AAAAA

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu13902 Decided August 22, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All of the records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal by appellant were examined, but their arguments on the grounds of appeal by appellant are not included in the grounds provided by each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and they are dismissed pursuant to Article 5 of the above Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by

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