Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-52107 ( October 11, 2015)

HTS Services are not value-added tax-free services.

HTS’s HTS’s offer is not value-added tax exemption services.

Seoul High Court-2015-Nu-49353

Even if the deposit was borrowed through HTS, it is directly traded in futures and options through such borrowing.

fees shall not be charged unless they are charged. In addition, fees shall not be paid when they purchase financial products.

(2) In the event of sale, the fee shall be imposed on the full amount of the deposit;

In addition, the actual transaction amount shall be calculated by multiplying the fee rate by the actual transaction amount. Therefore, it shall be imposed on the customer of the PP

PP cannot be viewed as a consideration for the use of the deposit money. If so, PP cannot be viewed as a consideration for the use of the deposit money

It can not be deemed that the credit business has been engaged in the lending business that lends and receives the consideration therefor.

- 5-

【PP can unilaterally recover the deposit through the female function of law.

(b) the right to dispose of the deposit money is not entirely transferred to the customer, and at the time of recovery;

It can be seen that the flag and recovery are under the control of PP rather than the customer's decision-making.

m. The customers of PP will make transactions through the Account in this case and the HTS.

in form, a profit entered under direct futures and options trading to the account of this case; or

Although loss is likely to occur, profits and losses arising from transactions are all investors.

Finally reverted to them.

2) Whether it is subject to value-added tax exemption without obtaining authorization for financial investment business

A) The former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11129, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter the same)

Article 12 is limited only to the supply of specific goods or services and the importation of specific goods.

No. 11 of the Act lists the exemption of value-added tax, and subparagraph 11 of the Act provides financing and insurance services.

The term "those prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" is subject to tax exemption, and thus, the Tax Exemption Board among financial and insurance services.

Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 22578, Dec. 30, 2010) stipulating the scope of business.

Article 33(1) of the Act must be strictly interpreted.

B) Article 33(1)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by the Capital Markets Act)

The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act provides that an investment brokerage business shall be exempted from value-added tax.

(2) Any person who intends to engage in financial investment business including the Financial Services Commission

and shall be prohibited from running the financial investment business without obtaining such authorization.

Articles 11 and 12 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Article 11 and Article 12 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act).

The Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act to enhance reliability and protect investors who are consumers of financial investment instruments.

Considering the legal purport, investment brokerage business exempt from value added tax is governed by the provisions of the Capital Markets Act.

- - Other

It is reasonable to view that it is limited to cases authorized by the Financial Services Commission (see Supreme Court Decision 9 February 9, 1988).

[See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu404]

C) Therefore, it is necessary to operate an investment brokerage business without authorization from the Financial Services Commission under the Capital Markets Act.

intention does not constitute a tax exemption of value-added tax. Any plaintiff's assertion contrary thereto.

80,000.

3) Whether the principle of tax equality is violated, etc.

The principle of equality is to prohibit arbitrary treatment of the same in essence.

However, the services provided by the Plaintiff constitute an investment brokerage business, not a mere loan of deposit money.

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to treat the same differently in the case of simple lending of deposit money.

tax authorities may not be deemed to violate principles. The tax authorities shall not regard other enterprises related to the Plaintiff.

The same taxation was also imposed.

Furthermore, the tax authorities on the provision of services in the same form as the Plaintiff prior to the instant disposition

There is no evidence to deem that non-taxable practices have been established. The Plaintiff obtained authorization under the Capital Markets Act.

inquiry or enforcement officer, regardless of whether it is subject to exemption under the Value-Added Tax Act;

[1] Article 33 (1) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act is related to monetary credit business.

In accordance with this market law, there is a provision that value-added tax shall be exempted for investment brokerage business.

In addition, there is no particular restriction on the "other monetary credit business" in subparagraph 18 of the same paragraph.

Therefore, the interpretation of the question question question question question question question question question cannot be extended to the case of investment brokerage business.

The decision of the Tax Tribunal cited by the Tax Tribunal is nothing more than that after the disposition of this case.

It does not restrict the judgment of the court, and it does not affect the judgment of the illegality of the disposition of this case.

(c)

- - Other

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

leAA

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-52107

April 21, 2016

May 12, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

- 2-

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's second added value in March 12, 2012 against the plaintiff on March 12, 2012.

tax of KRW 33,697,420 (including additional tax), and KRW 38,081,650 (including additional tax);

Value-added tax for two years in 2009 13,389,620 won (including value-added tax), and value-added tax for one year in 2010

92,427,320 won (including additional taxes), each set of KRW 48,648,520 (including additional taxes) of value-added tax for two years 2010

The administrative disposition shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

This Court's explanation is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except that "237.943,250 won" of the second 13th e.g., "237,943,250 won" of the judgment of the second e.g., "237,943,250 won" of the second e.g., "237,943,250 won" of the judgment of the second e.g., Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

HTS, which provided that PP is to be used by a customer, is designed to ensure the collection of loans, and is nothing more than delivery of a customer’s order to the HTS to the securities company’s HTS. Therefore, the principal service provided by the Plaintiff is not a lending of transaction account and a provision of transaction system, but a lending of money, so this constitutes a service exempt from value-added tax.

Even if the Plaintiff’s service constitutes an investment brokerage business and did not obtain authorization under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, imposing taxes other than administrative regulations depending on unmanned prices would be double punishment, and it goes against the tax practice previously maintained and thus, seriously unfair taxation.

- 3-

(2) may cause such action.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

This Court's explanation is the same as the statement in the third-party 24 through 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. Determination

1) Nature of the service rendered by the Plaintiff

A) The term “investment brokerage business” means the business of selling and purchasing financial investment instruments on another person’s account, regardless of the name of the district, or of soliciting offers, offering, and accepting offers for securities, or of soliciting offers, offering, and accepting offers for securities (see Article 6(3) and (3) of the Capital Markets Act and the amendment as seen earlier). The act of inducing members to trade securities accounts with which customer deposits are deposited, and HTS with an exchange and futures, and allowing members to pay a certain rate of fees and pay final profits and losses therefrom to members shall be deemed as engaging in a business of selling and buying financial investment instruments on another person’s account for the purpose of pursuing profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do1592, Jul. 25, 2013; 2015Do12332, Apr. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff provided money on the account of the Plaintiff’s offering of money deposit to customers is reasonable, not on the premise that the Plaintiff’s offering of this case’s reasoning.

(1) It is true that the customer of the PP may borrow deposits corresponding to the security deposit when depositing the security deposit in the PP, and the customer becomes a member of the PP in order to borrow this deposit. However, the instant HTS carries out services that merely borrow deposits in excess of simply borrowing the deposit deposit in order to enable the customer to engage in futures and options trading through the HTS of the securities company (i.e., linking the orders made through the HTS to the HTS of the securities company) and the function of linking the customers to the HTS of the securities company (i.e., linking the orders made through the HTS of this case to the HTS of the securities company), and if a certain amount of loss is incurred, the function of automatically saving the hand-off (loss-cut, law females function).

She further, in order for PP to constitute a loan prior to the lending, that is, a loan, the lender is required to lend a certain amount of money to the borrower and to receive interest in proportion to that period. However, the customer of the PP is required to pay the interest in proportion to that period.