Whether a franchise who is an advertising business operator has provided any advertising service.

The franchise, an advertising service provider, should enter into a contract for advertising services with the Plaintiff exclusively granted the right to receive an outside advertisement of Seoul Metropolitan City bus, and be deemed to have engaged in advertising orders and activities for the Plaintiff.

Article 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the advertising business operator (the so-called "so-called franchise") who provided the plaintiff with the advertising services to the plaintiff concludes an advertising service contract with the plaintiff exclusively granted the right to receive the outside advertisement of the Seoul city bus from ○○○○, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "○○○○○○,") and should not be deemed to have provided the advertising services directly to the ○○○○○○.

In light of the records and relevant legal principles, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds

2. On the second ground for appeal

Based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below calculated the Plaintiff’s internal advertising revenue amount of KRW 1,363,635, and KRW 2,727,273, and KRW 3,409,091 as the output tax amount for the year of 1996. In addition, the court below determined that the above advertising tax amount cannot be deducted from the output tax amount as long as each bill of exchange provided and received advertising services from the Plaintiff to ○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was in default, but the said commercial amount cannot be deducted from the output tax amount after deducting the bad debt tax amount. Examining in light of the records and relevant legal principles, the court below’s fact-finding and judgment is just, and there is no

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.