Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap31796 ( October 06, 2012)

early 2011west 1449 ( October 27, 2011)

Value-added tax is paid on behalf of a foreign corporation with no domestic place of business when the fee for publication is paid.

(1) Since it is reasonable to deem that the non-party company, a copyright holder, has a continuous publication right and has entered into a license agreement with the Plaintiff, the non-party company, without a domestic place of business, is obligated to pay the value-added tax on each of the books of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2012Nu24049 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Value-Added Tax

AAAA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap31796 decided July 6, 2012

March 8, 2013

March 29, 2013

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 000 for the second period of February 19, 201 against the plaintiff on February 19, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court to be addressed in this case is, except for modification, deletion, or addition, as follows, the grounds for the first instance judgment, and it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parts that are corrected, deleted, and added;

A. The modified part

The 3th judgment of the first instance court is amended to 'the 8th judgment' to 'the 'the 5th judgment' to 'the 'the 6th judgment' to 'the 'the 5th judgment' to 'the 'the 6th judgment' to

B. Parts to be deleted

"The plaintiff submitted the English contract(A No. 7) at the appellate court, and the 5th sentence No. 21 to the 5th sentence of the first instance court's decision. The plaintiff submitted only the Korean translation of the original English contract and made it impossible to accurately grasp the contents of the contract of this case on the grounds that the plaintiff lost the original English contract(the customs office's burden of proof, the defendant's burden of proof, and the defendant's burden of proof that the plaintiff is not the plaintiff actively if the defendant proves that he is not the plaintiff)."

1) As the Plaintiff submitted additional evidence at the appellate court, the Plaintiff added the evidence No. 4 through 7 (including paper numbers) to the ground for recognition of No. 16 of the judgment of the first instance court.

2) Regarding the possibility of transfer of the right(3) above, Article 6 of the contract of this case provides that the transfer of the right of the plaintiff to a third party shall not be permitted, and Article 7 provides that the export, sale, and distribution of the books which have been translated into Korean language shall be prohibited from being exported, sold, and distributed to any other country than Korea.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.