Value-added tax, etc. is reasonable for the Plaintiff to provide services directly to the information user.

The imposition of value-added tax and notice of change in the amount of income on the omission of the revenue amount of audio information service fees through wire telephone by the Plaintiff as the principal who directly provided the instant service to the information user is legitimate.

Article 13 of the former Value-Added Tax Act

2012Guhap41516 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

KOBGR

O Head of tax office

December 19, 2013

.02.06

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Purport of Claim

The imposition disposition of each corporate tax and value-added tax stated in attached Table 1 attached Table 1, which the Defendant imposed on the Plaintiff on January 2, 2012, and each disposition of notice of change in income amount listed in attached Table 2, which the Plaintiff made on February 21, 2012, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff, a key telecommunications business operator, entered into a telephone information service contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) with △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, a Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “OO”) and a special telecommunications business operator who provides information users with voice information service (hereinafter referred to as “the instant service”), using 060 prior network of a key telecommunications business operator, reported and paid corporate tax and value-added tax on the amount of income and value-added tax under the Corporate Tax Act with the amount of income and value-added tax on the tax base of OOO under the Value-Added Tax Act. However, the Plaintiff reported the tax base and tax amount from 206 to 2009 to 2009 to 206 to 206 to 206 to 206 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 2 to 20 to 2 to 20 to c to c to c to c to c to c to c to c to c to c to c to c.

(C) On July 2, 2010, the director of the regional tax office issued a plan for planning and inspection of charges for voice information service companies (VAT) to the defendant, and the defendant, as a result of the investigation of the sales amount, etc. reported by the plaintiff pursuant to the above planning and inspection plan, omitted from the information use fees (the aggregate of value-added tax base for the second period from 2006 to 2009, KRW 3,586,569,938, and the total amount of corporate tax from 2006 to 209, KRW 5,748,928,599) due to the provision of voice information service through wire telephone, and the plaintiff's request for disposition of disposal of the income amount from 206 to 209, as stated in attached Table 1, and the plaintiff's request for disposition of disposal of income amount for the second period from 2006 to 207,500 and 209.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of the notice of change in the income amount of this case shall be dismissed as it does not go through legitimate procedure of the preceding trial.

B. Determination

The purpose of Article 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes that requires procedures for administrative appeals, such as a request for review, prior to filing a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition, is to have a disposition authority have an opportunity for inventory and correction by itself, and to have a superior administrative authority take an opportunity for correction based on the supervisory authority, and to reduce the court’s burden by having a superior administrative agency take an opportunity for correction based on the supervisory authority, and settle the dispute in advance, so whether a taxpayer lawfully satisfies the requirements for administrative appeals should be determined by fully considering the purpose of establishing the aforementioned system.

Meanwhile, Article 18(3)2 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that a lawsuit for revocation may be brought even if one of the dispositions related to the contents of a letter, or dispositions taken by stages for the same purpose, has already been tried by an administrative appeal, without going through an administrative appeal as to other dispositions. Although each of such dispositions is a separate disposition, if it can be seen that a disposition is provided with an opportunity for inventory or correction in relation to another disposition, even if it is common to the grounds of illegality or dispute and the contents of the dispute, if it is judged that a disposition is a separate disposition, then it would be concluded that a disposition is provided with an opportunity for inventory or correction in relation to a certain disposition, even if it is filed without going through a separate administrative appeal, it would be concluded that the procedure and repetition of the disposition can be avoided and that the administrative remedy system will be invalidated.

With respect to this case, the disposition of this case and the notice of change in income amount of this case are imposed corporate tax and value-added tax on the omitted income amount from the provision of voice information service by the plaintiff by wire telephone, and the person to whom the omitted income amount belongs as the representative director of the plaintiff, and notified the change in income amount. Thus, the notice of change in income amount of this case is not revoked unless the disposition of this case is revoked. Thus, it can be seen that the act of causing the taxpayer to go through the procedure of the preceding trial is considered to constitute a case where the taxpayer is deemed to be infinite. Therefore, the defendant's aforementioned defense of safety is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff is not a business owner of 060 telephone information service, and there is no legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the information user, and the Plaintiff did not have specific information about the information user, the Plaintiff is not a business owner entitled to directly provide the instant service to the information user, and the Plaintiff does not need to recognize the entire amount of the information usage fee generated as sales. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that the entire amount of the information usage fee generated is the Plaintiff’s sales is unlawful.

2) The Defendant’s total amount of information usage fees and fact-finding based on the Plaintiff’s sales does not coincide with the information usage fees and the total amount expressed by the Plaintiff, such as OO. The Defendant did not properly grasp the omitted sales amount and issued the instant disposition. As such, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) Major contents of the instant contract

A) The main contents of the instant contract entered into between the Plaintiff and △△ Group are as follows.

Telephone Information Service Business Contract

O : The purpose of this contract is to provide for matters necessary to enter into a contract on the collection of information rent to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff for a series of business affairs (hereinafter referred to as "requesting agency") in which the Plaintiff provides telephone information services to the information users and receives information usage fees in return from the information users, and which is paid to the Plaintiff after the receipt of the charge, decision on collection, and claim on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is not allowed to use the trade name or route of △△(U) in the course of providing information services under this contract, and in the course of violating this contract, the Plaintiff is required to be exempted from the liability and expenses of △△(U) in advance and to compensate for all damages incurred by △(U).

O Facility Use Fees: Periodical shall open the line necessary for the provision of information to the plaintiff after the conclusion of this Agreement, and the facility use fee (charges for the equipment, lines, and facilities used by the plaintiff for the provision of information) shall be calculated by counting from the date the opening is completed.

O Information Use Fees

(C) The information use fee that is paid to the Plaintiff upon receipt of the terms and conditions shall be calculated on the basis of the information use fee that is paid in full by the information user.

(청구 및 지급) 정보이용자에 대한 정보이용료 청구, 수납, 요금조정, 과오납 환급(이하 '청 구'라ᅡ 한다)에 관한 일체의 권한은 □□□이 가진다. □□□은 청구대행과 관련하여 원고에 게 청구대행수수료 이외의 별도의 비용을 청구하지 아니한다. □□□은 정보이용자가 사용 한 정보이용료의 청구내역을 사용월 익월 말에 원고에게 제공하고, 납부월 익월 말일 원고 에게 수납한 정보이용료 중 청구대행수수료를 공제한 나머지 금액을 지급한다.

(In the event of failure to pay, pay, or pay by mistake or by mistake (if it is not possible to claim by proxy) the information service charges shall do its best to recover the attempted charges with the general telephone charges and the daily guidelines at the time of occurrence of the attempted charges, and shall pay the information service charges after deducting the claim service charges from the claim service charges if collected later: Provided, That the request shall not be made by proxy in the event of the cancellation, reduction or claim of the subscriber.

〇권리 및 의무: 원고는 정보이용자의 보호를 위해 계속적이고 안정적인 정보를 제공하고, 관계 법령을 위반하거나 정확하지 아니한 내용의 정보를 제공하여서는 아니 되며, 정보이용 자의 통화내역을 수정, 삭제하지 않고 보존할 의무가 있고, 정보이용자의 자료 요청시 즉시 이를 제공하여야 한다. □□□과 원고는 신의성실의 원칙에 따라 이 계약을 준수하고, 이 계약의 수행과 관련하여 상대방에게 손해를 초래한 경우에는 이를 배상하여야 한다.

B) The main contents of the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the OO are as follows.

A contract for the lease of telephone information service circuit during actual hours.

〇 목적: 본 계약서는 '실시간 전화정보서비스' 사업에 필요한 회선 임대에 관하여 필요한 제반 사항을 규정하는 데 목적이 있다.

〇 상표의 사용금지: 원고는 케이타의 회사명, 로고 등을 사용할 수 없다.

〇 회선이용요금: 원고는 계약의 체결 후 실시간 전화정보서비스 사업에 필요한 OOO 회선과 장비를 확보하여 서비스를 개시하여야 하며, 원고가 서비스 제공을 위해 사용하는 OOO의 장비, 회선 및 시설에 대한 요금은 이용약관에 따른다.

〇수납대행수수료: 원고가 제공하는 서비스 이용고객의 정보이용료는 OOO가 수납대행하며, 수납대행의 대가로 OOO에 납부하는 수납대행수수료의 수수료율, 계산, 청구 및 수납 절차는 별도로 체결한 '정보이용료 수납대행계약'에 따른다.

〇의무 및 손해배상: 원고는 광고시 상호명, 정보이용료, 정보제공자 연락번호, 불법정보 신고센터 번호를 반드시 기재하여야 하고, 원고가 제공한 정보와 관련하여 제3자로부터 분쟁이 제기된 경우 일체의 법률적 책임은 원고에게 있으며, 이로 인해 OOO에 발생한 손해를 배상한다.

C) The main contents of the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and △△△△△△△ are as follows.

Telephone Information Service Contracts

O Purpose: The purpose of this contract is to prescribe matters necessary for △△△△△△ to provide telephone information services to customers provided with information from the plaintiffs.

O Contract definition: This contract defines that the Plaintiff provides telephone information using the telephone network, equipment, etc. of △△△△△△△△△, and that the Plaintiff collects information usage fees paid by the customer who wants the information through telephone and pays the price for the provision of information to the Plaintiff.

O The opening line: △△△△△△ shall commence the installation of equipment necessary for the provision of information to the plaintiff immediately after the conclusion of this contract.

O Fees: The fee rate for collection of information service fees shall be 10% of the collected information service fees.

O Use guidance: The plaintiff shall provide guidance, including the plaintiff's trade name, information name, information use fees, and civil petition reception telephone numbers, in the front of the information provided.

O Information usage fees: All the authorities over claims for information usage fees, receipt, adjustment of charges, refund of overpaid or erroneously, etc. for customers shall be held by △△△△△△△. The timing for payment of information usage fees shall be the end of the following month. △△△△△△△△△△△ shall notify the Plaintiff of the total amount of the information usage fees, the amount received, the amount received, and the details of payment of information usage fees every month (Provided, That no detailed information is provided to users). If the Plaintiff fails to pay the fees normally, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△

O Rights and Obligations: The plaintiff shall provide continuous and stable information to protect customers, and separately operate telephone for guidance of customers and receipt of civil petitions from the commencement date of the service to the termination of the service and termination of the contract.

2) If the Plaintiff,OO, etc., and OO, etc. entered into a tax invoice with the total amount of the service fees of the Plaintiff, OO, etc., and the Plaintiff, OO, etc. entered into a transaction by accepting the so-called tax invoice as issued by the Plaintiff.

3) For accounting purposes, the OO et al. did not recognize that the fee for the instant service was a separate sales and profit for the information users, such as OO, etc., and the fee for the receipt of other claims on behalf of the information users, and the basic fee for sub-delivery related to the lease of 060 telecommunications networks, etc., recognized it as sales and profit-making by OOO et al., and issued a tax invoice to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 6, 9, 10, Eul evidence No. 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

앞서 본 사실관계 및 갑 제7호증, 을 제13호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 별정통신사업이란 기간통신사업자의 전기통신회선설비 등을 이용하여 기간통신역무를 제공하는 사업인바(전기통신사업법 제5조 제3항 제1호 참조), 원고는 별정통신사업자로서 기간통신사업자인 OOO 등의 060 회선망을 이용하여 정보이용자들에게 음성 정보서비스를 제공하는 이 사건 용역을 제공 한 점, ② 이 사건 계약은，'원고'가 '정보이용자'에게 '전화정보서비스를 제공'함에 있어 'OOO 등'은 '원고를 대신하여' '과금, 징수결정, 청구 및 수납, 정산 및 지급 등의 업무를 대행'하는 업무를 담당하는'정보이용료 회수대행계약'임을 명시적으로 선언하고 있고, 그에 따라 OOO 등이 원고에게 지급해야 하는 정보이용료의 산정，청구 수납, 정산 지급 등에 관한 사항 및 OOO 등이 원고로부터 지급받아야 하는 청구대행수수료와 시설이용요금 등의 산정, 지급방법 등에 관한 사항 등을 주요 내용으로 담고 있는 점, ③ 또한 이 사건 계약에 따르면 원고는 이 사건 용역을 제공함에 있어서 OOO 등의 회사명，로고 등을 사용할 수 없고, 이 사건 용역을 제공하기 전에 원고의 상호, 제공 정보명, 정보이용 요금 등을 안내하도록 규정하고 있는 점, ④ 원고는 실제로 정보이용자에게 이 사건 용역을 제공하기 전에 위와 같이 원고가 직접 정보를 제공하고 통화료와 별도로 정보이용료가 부가된다는 내용의 안내를 하였는바, 정보이용자로서는 OOO 등이 아닌 원고가 이 사건 용역을 제공하는 것으로 인식하기에 충분한 점(반면 정보이용자가 이 사건 용역을 제공받는 과정에서 OOO 등이 이 사건 용역을 제공한다고 인식하였을만한 사정은 찾아볼 수 없다), ⑤ 원고의 정보이용자에 대한 위와 같은 안내는 이 사건 용역 제공 계약의 청약으로 볼 수 있고, 이에 대한 정보이용자의 동의는 그에 응하는 승낙으로 볼 수 있으므로, 원고와 정보이용자 사이에 이 사건 용역 제공 계약이 성립된 점, © 원고는 OOO 등으로부터 이 사건 용역의 공급자를 원고, 이 사건 용역의 정보이용료 전액을 공급가액으로 하는 역발행 세금계산서를 수수하는 한편, OOO 등으로부터 청구대행수수료 등에 대한 매입세금계산서를 수취하여 부가가치세 등을 신고한 점 등을 종합해 보면，원고가 정보이용자에게 이 사건 용역을 직접 제공하였고, OOO 등은 원고가 정보이용자에게 이 사건 용역을 제공함에 있어 필요한 회선을 임대하고 정보이용료의 청구 및 수납을 대행하는 역할만을 수행한 것이라고 봄이 타당하다. 따라서 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

2) Judgment on the second argument

In full view of the purport of each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 15 through 19, the defendant found that the plaintiff omitted information usage fees from the tax base for providing voice information service through wire telephone, and requested data on the amount of request for information usage fees, etc. on or around April 2010 to identify the above omitted income, and received data from OO, etc. on or around July 2010. The defendant found that the plaintiff omitted information usage fees as seen above based on the above data, and the defendant made the disposition of this case. According to the above facts, the defendant seems to have made the disposition of this case by properly ascertaining the omitted income amount of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the plaintiff pointed out that the above omitted income amount is inconsistent with the information usage fees stated by OO, etc. through fact-finding, but since the plaintiff's response by OO, etc. according to fact-finding is "amount of settlement of information usage fees", it cannot be different from the "amount of request for information usage fees," which serves as the basis for omission, and that O et al.'s reply to the above amount of request 1000 O's.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.