The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 12(1)7 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides for “is prescribed by Presidential Decree as one of the books subject to value-added tax exemption.” Article 32 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22043, Feb. 18, 2010) provides for “an electronic book subject to value-added tax exemption” includes “an electronic book subject to value-added tax exemption, accompanied by a sound recording or video tape containing the contents of the book in the ordinary supply unit (Article 1(1)) and “electronic publication prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance” (Article 11). Article 11 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Mar. 31, 2010).

Meanwhile, Article 1(4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The supply of goods or services essential for the supply of goods which are the main transaction shall be included in the supply of goods, and the supply of goods or services essential for the supply of services which are the main transaction shall be deemed to be included in the supply of services which are the main transaction.”

In transactions in which multiple goods or services are supplied and units, any of them is the main goods or services and any of them is the goods or services incidental thereto, in a specific form of transaction.