1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff entered into a business partnership with credit card companies, banks, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “partnership companies”). When the Plaintiff uses B mileage (hereinafter referred to as “affiliated mileage”) accumulated by the customer according to the results of the use of the association companies (hereinafter referred to as “first transaction”), it operates a system that deducts the amount of the association mileage as much as the amount of the use amount when it uses the B mileage (hereinafter referred to as “second transaction”). In this case, the Plaintiff reported and paid the amount of the use equivalent to the association mileage (hereinafter referred to as “amount of the association mileage”) as the value-added tax base by including it in the value-added tax base.

After the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Du58959 Decided August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the portion of the amount of use of the connection mileage in this case constitutes a discount amount not included in the value-added tax base, and was included only in the transactions between the second period of 201 and the second period of 2016 and the second period of 2016 to the first period of 2017: Provided, That only the transactions between March 30, 2017, effective as of April 1, 2017, Article 61(1)9 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27838, Feb. 7, 2017) (hereinafter referred to as “third party mileage”).

) Of the settlement parts, the portion received or to be received by a person other than the recipient of the goods or services must not be included in the VAT tax base for value-added tax.

A request for correction was made to the effect that the value-added tax equivalent to the same amount reported and paid was refunded.

The Defendant: (a) deemed that the transaction structure of the instant case is similar to the foregoing en banc Decision; and (b) decided to refund the value-added tax for the first period from 2011 to 2016; (c) the Plaintiff’s association mileage system differs from the first transaction and the second transaction supplier; and (d) the Plaintiff is affiliated with the amount used by the customer.