Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap41011 ( October 12, 2010)

Seocho 208west 2523 (Law No. 96.30)

Where financial services are supplied incidental to a main taxable business, the relevant input tax amount shall be exempted.

In the event that financial services are provided in addition to the main taxable business, the input tax amount related to the expenses paid to provide them shall be deemed the tax-free input tax amount. In the event that loans are used for the loan and operating funds, the relevant input tax amount shall be calculated in accordance with the calculation

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the defendant revoked the imposition of the second-term surcharge of KRW 52,160,770 for the plaintiff on April 2, 2008 and the imposition of KRW 162,77,00 for the first-term surcharge of KRW 162,77,00 for the first-term surcharge of KRW 206 for the plaintiff on April 2, 200.

쇠지지鹬 쇠鹬 3000 u3000

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments with respect to the matters for which the plaintiff asserts in the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Although the Plaintiff stated the settlement on a one-year basis under the service contract, considering the structure of the instant development project, relationship with the Plaintiff and its subsidiaries, business progress rate, and settlement of accounts, and local circumstances, the time at which at least the provision was completed under the substance over form principle under Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is deemed the time of supply for the service. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the imposition of value-added tax for the first year of 2007, which the Defendant reported otherwise, is illegal. Thus, the Plaintiff’s statement and the Plaintiff’s nature of USD 12,90,000 paid on June 13, 2007 in the course of the investigation into the instant service contract, are consistent with the Plaintiff’s statement and the Plaintiff’s statement in the course of the investigation into the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff’s allegation that the instant service contract constitutes an interim payment condition contract under the Value-Added Tax Act, and the service contract constitutes the time of supply for the service, which constitutes the substantive form of the Plaintiff’s tax law or its substance.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.