The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4

A. Article 13(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 2011) provides that “The tax base of value-added tax on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of the following values (hereinafter “value of supply”): Provided, That each subparagraph provides that “where payments are made in money: The payment is made: The price that is paid in cash; the market price of the goods or services supplied by the person himself/herself ( Subparagraph 1); and (2) provides that “where payments are made in money other than money: the market price of the goods or services supplied by the person himself/herself ( Subparagraph 2); and (3) provides that incentives and similar amounts shall not be deducted from the tax base of value-added tax; and Article 13(5) provides that “The matters necessary for the calculation of the tax base other than those provided for in paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree”.

Article 13(1), (2), (3), and (5) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 915, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as “former Value-Added Tax Act”) is the same purport; hereinafter referred to as “former Value-Added Tax Act”). Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “The tax base under Article 13(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act includes any price, charge, or any other monetary value, regardless of the pretext of the transaction, which is paid by the counter-party to the transaction.” Article 52(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The amount of discount under Article 13(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act, in settling the quality and the quantity of delivery of the goods or services.”