Whether it constitutes a false tax invoice

Since there is no contractual relationship, and the plaintiff and the non-party corporation determine the cost of art services, the tax invoice issued as the non-party corporation is the tax invoice lawfully issued.

Article 16 (Tax Invoice)

Article 22 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to Article 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, a tax invoice shall be issued to the person receiving the goods or services. The "person receiving the services" refers to the person receiving the services, etc. on contractual or legal grounds. Thus, in determining who is the "person receiving the services" due to contractual grounds, various circumstances such as the parties to the contract that caused the supply of the services, the contents thereof, and the payment relationship shall be taken into consideration.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the art service provided by the plaintiff to the program produced at the request of ○○ Broadcasting was provided for ○○ Broadcasting in accordance with a contract for the provision of art service concluded between the plaintiff and ○○ Broadcasting. There is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and ○○ Broadcasting. Accordingly, the art service cost, which is the price for the provision of the above art service, is determined between the plaintiff and ○○ Broadcasting, is not involved in the decision of the cost of the art service. Furthermore, among the above art service cost, the height maintenance of the above art service cost is cost difficult to be related to the specific program and has a strong nature of preserving the cost paid by the plaintiff for the program broadcasted by ○○○ Broadcasting. From the 198 business year, 198, it can be known that ○○ Broadcasting was directly paid the above fixed cost to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the person being supplied with the above art service is a party to the above service supply contract, and it is nothing more than the plaintiff being supplied with the above art service, which is a person subject to the tax invoice.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the tax invoice or the person receiving services under the Value-Added Tax Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 20 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), where a domestic corporation’s act or calculation of income amount is deemed to have unjustly reduced the tax burden on the corporation’s income due to transactions with a specially related person, it shall be subject to the avoidance of wrongful calculation. Article 46(2)7 of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 of Dec. 31, 1998) provides that “when the service is provided at a low rate” as one of the cases where it is deemed that the tax burden has been unjustly reduced.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, between the Plaintiff and ○○ Broadcasting, a contract for the provision of art services was concluded in 1998 with the content that the calculation of the service cost should be based on the standard art cost originally based on the contract. On February 21, 1998, after the conclusion of the contract, ○○ Broadcasting notified the Plaintiff of the transaction standard of art services with the purport that 12,260,493,00 won, which is the amount calculated by applying the standard art cost under the contract for the provision of the above art services, shall not be deemed to be the market price of the above art services. On the other hand, since the Defendant asserted, proved, the market price of the above art services cannot be deemed to be the market price lower than the market price of 12 billion won, the Plaintiff’s provision of the services to ○○ Broadcasting shall not be deemed to constitute a wrongful calculation.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the wrongful calculation omission.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.