beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Article 13(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that the tax base of value-added tax on the supply of goods or services shall be the sum of the values in each of the following subparagraphs (hereinafter “value of supply”). Subparagraph 1 provides that “If the price is paid in money,” “the price is paid in money,” and subparagraph 2 provides “market price of the goods or services supplied by the person in question,” and subparagraph 2 provides that “if
In addition, Article 48(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 24638, Jun. 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that the tax base under Article 13(1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act includes all monetary values having a quid pro quo relationship, regardless of the pretext, such as the price, charge, fee, and any other fee
Meanwhile, Article 13(2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides for “amount that is not included in the tax base”. Of them, Article 13(2)1 of the former Value-Added Tax Act provides for “amount of discount”.
In addition, Article 52(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act provides that “The overcharge amount under Article 13(2)1 of the Act shall be the amount which deducts a specified amount from the ordinary supply value at the time of supply of the goods or services in accordance with the payment of quality, delivery cost, and other terms and conditions of supply”.
In relation to the supply of goods or services, the amount of overcharge which is directly deducted from the ordinary supply value due to the conditions of supply, such as quality quantity, payment for delivery, etc., is not limited to the time of the occurrence of the goods or services, but there is no special restriction on the method of deduction.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Du19615 Decided December 23, 2015).