The instant contributions are not subject to taxation because the Plaintiff paid the instant contributions on behalf of the member banks.

Among the contributions of this case, the disposition of this case on the plaintiff's own business portion is legitimate, but the plaintiff's own business portion and the agency business portion on which the member banks are responsible for payment cannot be separated, so the disposition of this case including the portion on the own business portion cannot be revoked.

Article 34 (Payment by Proxy)

2014Guhap63107 Disposition of revocation of imposition of corporate tax, etc.

○ Card Corporation

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap63107 decided January 19, 2018

November 13, 2018

on 15, 2019

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The imposition of each corporate tax and value-added tax listed in the attached Table 1 of the first instance judgment by the defendant against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ Up to the fourth decision of the court of first instance, the obligation to submit the third " obligation to submit" is deemed to be " obligation to submit".

○ On the 17th judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added to the fourth below:

이에 대하여 피고는 OOO카드사에 대하여 이 사건 분담금 납부의무를 부담하는 당사자는 원고이고 원고와 회원은행들 사이의 내부관계로 인하여 원고의 OOO카드사에 대한 분담금 납부의무가 달라지는 것은 아니므로, 이 사건 분담금 중 원고의 고유사업분을 제외한 대행사업분에 관한 증명책임은 원고가 부담하여야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 OOO카드사가 이 사건 분담금을 원고에게 일괄 부과하는 것은 주 회원인 원고가 제휴 회원인 회원은행들의 분담금 납부에 관한 책임을 부담하기 때문일 뿐이고, 원고가 제휴 회원인 회원은행들의 원칙적인 분담금 납부의무까지부담한다고 보기는 어렵다. 원고는 제1심 법원과 이 법원의 거듭된 석명요구에 대하여 이 사건 분담금의 납부 이후 10〜15년이 경과하여 이 사건 분담금 중 원고의 고유사업분과 회원은행들의 대행사업분을 구분할 수 있는 자료를 더 이상 보유하지 않고 있다고 석명하고 있다. 그리고 원고가 회원은행들로부터 신용카드의 국외사용 등 국제업무를 회원은행들의 위임에 따라 대행하고 있었다는 점은 이 사건 분담금에 관한 부가가치세 부과기간인 2003년 제2기부터 2007년 제1기까지와 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고가 대행사업분에 대한 부가가치세 대리납부의무자를 원고가 아닌 회원은행들로 보아 원고에게 부과하였던 부가가치세를 환급한 2007년 제2기 이후에 걸쳐 모두 동일하였는바(갑13호증의 1, 2), 이러한 상황에서 과세요건인 원고의 고유사업분 분담금을 증명하여야 하는 피고의 기본적인 증명책임이 원고에게 전환된다고 할 수는 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

○ Ison 20 pages 20 of the first instance court's decision, the first instance court's "Mediation" shall be deemed to be "making".

○ The following shall be added on the 23th judgment of the first instance court:

[On the other hand, the domestic credit card companies, which have attached the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ (JCB) trademark, have been paying value-added tax on behalf of the tax authority by deeming part of the credit card payment amount as trademark right royalty income (the data attached to the statement of grounds for appeal on April 30, 2018), and the Plaintiff could have sufficiently predicted that the value-added tax should be paid on behalf of the relevant tax as well as the domestic credit card companies that have attached other trademarks after the change of the OO card company’s organization as the domestic credit card companies that have attached other trademarks).

○ On the 24th judgment of the first instance court, the following "any termination" shall be read as "all kinds":

○ In the first instance court’s decision No. 27, the part of the imposition disposition of value-added tax on the second sentence of 2003 is subject to “29,901,580” as “299,901,580”.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.