Seoul High Court 2015Nu39035 (Law No. 18, 2016)

The credibility of the daily settlement of accounts of the first day may be recognized, and the table user fee is not the service fee of employees.

The credibility of the daily settlement of accounts of the first day can be recognized, and the table user fee is not a service fee of employees.

2015Du53572

UnionA

00. Head of tax office, 00

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu39035 Decided September 23, 2015

February 18, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

After comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and then the daily settlement of accounts

Being true in light of the statements of the persons concerned, the writing of the person concerned, the accuracy of the amount stated, the details of seizure, etc.

Inasmuch as the sales recorded in the settlement of accounts are recognized as actual sales of the instant age club;

I determined that it can be seen.

This part of the grounds of appeal is that the above determination by the court below is erroneous, but this is a fact-finding court.

It is merely wrong with the selection of evidence or fact-finding which belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

No ground of appeal can be a legal ground of appeal. Furthermore, in light of the record, we examine the reasoning of the judgment below.

There is no error of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning; and

Re-Sales did not include the amount of service provided claimed by the Plaintiff.

(c)

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with regard to the judgment of the court below on the assumption of the first day settlement of accounts.

to the extent that the judgment of the court below that the service is not included in the amount

The legitimacy of the assertion is no longer affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and thus cannot be accepted.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning; and

usage fees shall not be paid to employees with the intention to directly revert to employees for their service;

D. On the ground that the instant table usage fee was directly reverted to the business owner, the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The Commission determines that the supply of goods or services, which is subject to taxation, constitutes a price for the supply of goods or services; and

The plaintiff's assertion that it should be viewed as "service charges of employees" that are excluded from the assessment base of the value-added tax.

I developed.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is determined.

reasonable, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the legal nature or addition of the instant table usage fee is the legal nature or addition.

There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles concerning employee service fees under value-related tax law.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are 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.