2012west 3012 ( November 08, 2013)

It is reasonable to view that the principal service provided by the Plaintiff as a lending of money, not a lending of transaction account and provision of transaction system.

It is reasonable to view that the principal service provided by the Plaintiff as a lending of money for tax-free services, not for futures and options account lending or for the provision of HTS transaction system.

Article 12 of the former Value-Added Tax Act / [Tax Exemption]

2014Guhap52114 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

○○○○○○

○ Head of tax office

November 1, 2014

November 21, 2014

1. On March 12, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax for the first term of 2010 against the Plaintiff and value-added tax for the second term of 2010 shall be revoked in entirety.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of providing online information and providing Internet services.

B. On March 12, 2012, the Defendant determined that “the Plaintiff omitted a report on the receipt of fees,” and revised and notified the Plaintiff on March 12, 2010 KRW 00 of value-added tax for the first term of 2010 and KRW 00 of value-added tax for the second term of 2010.

C. On June 8, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, and the tax trial was conducted.

On March 12, 2012, the Board rendered a decision to rectify the tax base and tax amount of value-added tax by deducting the fees for securities companies paid to securities companies from sales.

D. According to the above decision, the Defendant issued a revised notice of the tax amount of value-added tax for the second term portion of 2010 to 00 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s HTS is designed to secure the collection of loans and is merely an intention to deliver customers’ orders to the HTS to the securities company’s HTS. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s principal services provided are not the lending of transaction accounts and the provision of transaction systems, but the lending of money. Therefore, this constitutes a service exempt from value-added tax.

2) Even if the Plaintiff’s domestic service does not constitute a monetary credit business, it shall be deemed that the service constitutes an investment brokerage business, and thus, it constitutes a service exempt from value-added tax.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff opened a futures and options trading account in its name in the securities company (hereinafter “instant account”) and performed futures and options trading by customers through the instant account. The Plaintiff’s customer divided the instant account into the amount deposited by the customer to the Plaintiff and the sum of the deposit funds lent to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff.

2) The process in which the Plaintiff’s futures and options transactions are conducted through HTS is as follows.

A) If the Plaintiff’s customer joined the Plaintiff’s HTS and deposits the security money to the Plaintiff, the customer’s virtual account is created.

B) In the customer’s HTS virtual account, the sum of “security deposits deposited by the customer to the Plaintiff” and “the maximum limit of the deposit money that the Plaintiff may lend to the Plaintiff is indicated as the total amount of deposit, and the customer may engage in futures and options transactions within the maximum amount of deposit.

C) The Plaintiff’s HTS is linked to the HTS by the securities company, and if the customer purchases and sells orders to the Plaintiff’s HTS, the securities company’s purchase and sales orders also take place.

D) If the purchase and sale transaction was conducted through the Plaintiff’s HTS, the Plaintiff’s fee to be paid to the securities company and the customer’s fee to be paid to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant fee”) shall be deducted from the total deposit amount. The method of calculating the instant fee is as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 5 to 15, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

Article 12 (1) 11 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011) provides that "the supply of financial and insurance services prescribed by Presidential Decree shall be exempted from value-added tax", and Article 33 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22578, Dec. 30, 201) provides that "financial and insurance services provided for in Article 12 (1) 11 of the Act shall be services falling under any of the following subparagraphs," and Article 12 (1) 18 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that "other money credit business."

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s HTS is allowed to conduct futures and options transactions only through HTS of the securities company; ② the Plaintiff’s HTS appears to have no function to deliver customer’s orders to HTS of the securities company; ③ any person may open a futures and options trading account through the securities company; ④ the customer’s main reason for using the Plaintiff’s HTS is the Plaintiff’s basic deposit and customer deposit; ④ the customer’s primary reason for using the Plaintiff’s HTS is to borrow the money from the Plaintiff’s basic deposit and customer deposit; ⑤ Although the instant fee is not proportional to the trading price and the frequency of the transaction, it cannot be deemed that the price for using the money must be proportional to the period of using the money. As such, the Plaintiff’s main service is not the lending and lending account provided by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is justified.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is ordered to accept all of them.

The decision shall be rendered as above.