Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap40193 ( October 22, 2013)

Seocho 2012west 2582 (Law No. 105, 2012)

Until the completion of the revised work, it is difficult to recognize the services of the non-party company as being completed.

Whether the provision of a service constitutes a service appurtenant to the main service shall not only be the basis for objective and external circumstances, such as expenses necessary for the provision of the service, but also be determined in consideration of the purpose, substance, etc. of the service provided.

Article 9 (Transaction Time) (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act

2013Nu10535 Revocation of Value Added Tax Imposition Disposition, etc.

AAAAAAAAAA, a corporation

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap40193 decided March 22, 2013

August 22, 2013

September 5, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's refusal to refund the value-added tax for the first period of November 10, 201 against the plaintiff on November 10, 201 and the disposition of imposition of the value-added tax for the first period of January 201 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

이 법원이 이 판결에서 설시할 이유는，① 제1심 판결문 제11쪽 제2행의 "▣ 부가가치세법" 부분을 "▣ 구 부가가치세법(2013. 6. 7. 법률 제11873호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것)"으로 고쳐 쓰고，② 제1심 판결문 제12쪽 제4행의 "▣ 부가가치세법 시행령" 부분을 "▣ 구 부가가치세법 시행령(2013. 2. 15. 대통령령 제24359호로 일부 개정되기 전의 것)"으로 고쳐 쓰며，③ 피고의 주장에 관한 판단을 아래 "제2항"과 같이 추가하는 이외에는 제1심 판결문의 이유 기재와 같으므로， 행정소송법 제8조 제2항， 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 인용한다.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's argument

BB Media (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) completed the production of the instant drama and completed the revision work of replacing sound sources for overseas broadcasting, etc., and then delivered the relevant plastic tape to the Plaintiff shall be deemed not to be the delivery of the service result based on the instant production contract, but to be the supply to the purchaser of the sales slip for export events. Considering that the supply value of the instant drama production consignment service is less than 3.7 billion won, and that the revised work is less than 2.4 million won, while the revised work is deemed to be an incidental work performed after the completion of the instant drama production, the completion date of the supply of the instant service should be deemed to be the time of the final domestic broadcasting delivery, which is the time when the results were calculated. Therefore, the instant disposition based on such premise is legitimate.

B. Determination

(1) According to Article 9(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013), and Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24359, Feb. 15, 2013), if the supply price of services is determined at the time of completing the provision of services, the general supply price is determined at the time of the provision of services, and "the time of completing the provision of services" means the time when the provision of services is confirmed most clearly by considering the scope of the services under the contract between the traders and the terms of the contract, and it is difficult for the company to find that the service provider would be able to use the calculated services, and that it is difficult for the company to see that the revised services provider would be able to use the revised services, such as the initial domestic service, and that it is difficult for the company to use the revised services without considering the aforementioned circumstances. (See Decision 2008Du51717, Aug. 21, 2008).

(3) Ultimately, the defendant's above assertion alleged on the other premise cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

If so, the first island that cited the plaintiff's claim in this case is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.