Ulsan District Court-2014-Guhap2137 (2015.04.30)

Whether the key service fee is a service fee that can be excluded from the tax base, such as value-added tax.

The service charges of this case, including employees, paid by the plaintiffs themselves to the Nitter, etc., are not service charges paid by the customers for special services provided by Nitter, etc., but merely paid the amount received by the plaintiffs from their own revenue as remuneration or allowances in the form of piece rates, and cannot be excluded from the tax base of value-added tax, etc.

Article 1(1) and (4) of the Individual Consumption Tax Act

2015Nu21391 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

KimA

○○ Head of tax office

Ulsan District Court Decision 2014Guhap2137 decided April 30, 2015

on December 23, 2015

November 04, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke all of the disposition of value-added tax, individual consumption tax and education tax imposed on the plaintiffs on October 10, 2013, as shown in the "the details of the instant disposition" attached Form 2 (the date of each disposition stated in the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim shall be the clerical error of October 10, 2013.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's reasoning is that the statement of No. 11 (Service Fee Payment Book) is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff is admitted as evidence for lack of the plaintiffs' assertion, and it is not sufficient to recognize that "the specific service fees received individually from the customers have been paid as they are, as they are," as additional documents submitted in the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Plaintiffs are basically repeating the same argument in the first instance court, and even if the Plaintiffs consider the allegations and reasons that have been partially supplemented in the trial, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable]

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.